Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2010; 32: 912–918
Expertise, needs and challenges of medicaleducators: Results of an international websurvey
SOREN HUWENDIEK1, STEWART MENNIN2, PETER DERN3, MIRIAM FRIEDMAN BEN-DAVID4,5y,CEES VAN DER VLEUTEN6, BURKHARD TONSHOFF7 & CHRISTOPH NIKENDEI8
1University Children’s Hospital Heidelberg, Germany, 2University of New Mexico School of Medicine, USA,3University Freiburg, Germany, 4Centre for Medical Education, UK, 5Tel Aviv University Sackler School of Medicine, Israel,6Maastricht University, The Netherlands, 7University Children’s Hospital Heidelberg, Germany, 8University of HeidelbergMedical Hospital, Germany
Abstract
Background: Little is known about how medical educators perceive their own expertise, needs and challenges in relation to
medical education.
Aim: To survey an international community of medical educators with a focus on: (1) their expertise, (2) their need for training
and (3) perceived challenges.
Methods: A web-based survey comprising closed and open free-text questions was sent to 2200 persons on the mailing list of the
Association for Medical Education in Europe.
Results: Of the 2200 medical educators invited to participate, 860 (39%) from 76 different countries took part in the survey.
In general, their reported areas of expertise mainly comprised principles of teaching, communication skills training, stimulation
of students in self-directed learning and student assessment. Respondents most often indicated a need for training with respect
to development in medical-education-research methodology, computer-based training, curriculum evaluation and curriculum
development. In the qualitative analysis of 1836 free-text responses concerning the main challenges faced, respondents referred
to a lack of academic recognition, funding, faculty development, time for medical education issues and institutional support.
Conclusions: The results of this survey indicate that medical educators face several challenges, with a particular need for more
academic recognition, funding and academic qualifications in medical education.
Introduction
Over the last 20 years, academic medicine has entered a
period of uncertainty and decline, which has given rise to
widespread alarm (Clark 2005; Sheridan 2006). An interna-
tional campaign to revitalize worldwide academic medicine
was launched by the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, the
Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Dutch Journal
of Medicine, the Medical Journal of Australia, the Croatian
Medical Journal, the Academy of Medical Sciences and others
(Tugwell 2004). Within this movement, the major role of
medical education in fostering change in the quality of health
care became apparent. In a report from the Institute of
Medicine’s Committee on the roles of academic health centres
in the twenty-first century (Cox & Irby 2006), it was observed
that ‘among all of the academic health centre roles, education
will require the greatest changes in the coming decade’. This
awareness is mirrored by the increasing interest shown
by leading medical journals in publishing special medical-
education issues or running series on medical education
(Tugwell 2004; Clark 2005; Golub 2005; Cox & Irby 2006).
Astonishingly, while medical educators are aware of the
Practice points
. Little is known about how medical educators perceive
their own expertise, needs and challenges in relation to
medical education.
. In this international web-based survey, most medical
educators reported a need for training with respect to
development in medical education research methodol-
ogy and computer-based training.
. Medical educators perceived a lack of academic recog-
nition and funding as the main challenges to medical
education.
Correspondence: S. Huwendiek, Department of General Paediatrics, University Children’s Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 153, D-69120
Heidelberg, Germany. Tel: 49 6221 5638368; fax: 49 6221 5633749; email: [email protected] article is dedicated to our deceased colleague Miriam Friedman Ben-David, whose heartiness and vision impressed and continues to inspire
us up to this very day.
912 ISSN 0142–159X print/ISSN 1466–187X online/10/110912–7 � 2010 Informa UK Ltd.
DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.497822
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
current situation of medical education and they play a major
role in changing and preparing medical education for the
coming decades, very little is known about their views on their
own situation, their needs or the challenges which they face.
We therefore surveyed an international community of
medical educators focusing on three aspects: (1) their exper-
tise, (2) their need for training and (3) the challenges they
perceived.
Methods
Development of the survey instrument and testing
The questionnaire was developed based on five focus groups
of medical educators (4–6 participants each). Five cognitive
interviews were conducted to test uniformity of comprehen-
sion with respect to the questions included. We additionally
conducted a pre-test using the web-based questionnaire based
on a sample of 30 medical educators. The final web-based
questionnaire (commercial survey tool) took approximately
20 min to complete and comprised two open questions and
34 closed questions designed to elicit medical educators’ views
on their expertise, need for training and challenges.
The first set of seven items was used to collect demo-
graphical data: age, gender, country of residence, professional
background, professional status, academic title and number of
years of employment in ‘health professions’. Two further
questions referred to medical education degree earned or
planned and the number of years of active involvement
in medical education. Items concerning participants’ work
setting and the role played by medical education in their work
specifically related to the ‘organizational unit of work’; the
proportion of work devoted to ‘medical education (including
teaching, evaluation, administrative work, research in medical
education)’, ‘clinical work’ and ‘research other than in medical
education’; the amount of time outside working hours devoted
to ‘medical-education activities including preparation’; the
degree of ‘emphasis on medical education’ in their institution;
and ‘personal interest in medical education’. Two questions
addressed research output in medical education, specifically
asking about the number of articles published as first author
and as co-author. Expertise and educators’ need for training
were also explored. Expertise was rated for 12 important
domains of medical education using a 5-point Likert scale
(1¼ very low; 5¼ very high): ‘general principles of teaching’,
‘stimulating students in self-directed learning’, ‘facilitating
problem-based learning as a tutor’, ‘technical-skills training’,
‘communication-skills training (e.g. giving feedback)’, ‘devel-
opment and/or usage of computer-based training’, ‘tutor
training’, ‘mentoring’, ‘curriculum development’, ‘student
assessment’, ‘course and curriculum evaluation’ and ‘research
methodology in medical education’. A different type of
question required respondents to select a maximum of 6 out
of 12 areas of medical education in which they perceived ‘a
special need for further training’. This question was followed
by four items in which respondents used a 5-point Likert scale
(1¼ very low; 5¼ very high) to rate their need for: ‘experi-
enced senior medical educators as role models in their
institution’, ‘financial support for medical-education projects
at their institute’, ‘national and international networking with
medical educators’ and ‘more recognition for their medical-
education work in their institution’. Respondents were also
invited to provide free-text responses with regard to ‘the three
main problems they face as a medical educator and for which
they feel a special need for support and/or change’. In a final
item, respondents used a 5-point Likert scale (1¼ very low;
5 ¼ very high) to rate the extent to which they considered
themselves to be ‘medical educators’.
Administration of the survey
On two occasions between August and September 2005,
an email was sent by the office of the Association of Medical
Education in Europe (AMEE, www.amee.org) to all addresses
on the AMEE mailing list, comprising AMEE members and
AMEE conference visitors (n¼ 2200). The email contained an
introduction to the survey and a link to the web-based survey
tool. There were no additional e-mails or phone contacts.
Study population
All persons on the AMEE mailing list (n¼ 2200) were invited
to participate. AMEE has an explicit international focus, and
the AMEE conference represents the largest international
medical education meeting worldwide.
Statistical analyses
Percentages were calculated for demographical data. For age,
involvement in medical education and working experience
in a health profession, mean values were calculated in terms
of number of years. For the items on perceived expertise in
12 different domains of medical education, means and
standard deviations were calculated. Based on those partici-
pants who had selected a maximum of 6 of 12 areas of medical
education which they considered important for further train-
ing, we calculated the percentage of participants who had
selected each area. Two researchers independently identified
themes and sub-themes in the free-text responses on per-
ceived challenges and the need for support. Consensus was
achieved by means of comparison and discussion. Relevance
and consistency of the analysis was checked for by the
research team.
Ethical approval
The ethical review committee of the University of Heidelberg
did not consider the study to require approval. We confirm
that participation was voluntary, that participants cannot be
identified from the material presented and that no plausible
harm to participating individuals can arise from the study.
Results
Sample
Completed questionnaires were returned by 860 of the 2200
individuals who were sent the invitational e-mails (39% rate
International medical-educator survey
913
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
of return). Table 1 presents participants’ characteristics.
Engagement in medical education resulted in an average
of 10.3 (�10.1) extra hours working time per week
beyond regular working hours. Ratings were very high for
interest in medical education (4.63� 0.61) and emphasis on
medical education in respondents’ institutions (3.85� 0.97).
Respondents strongly regarded themselves as medical educa-
tors (3.86� 0.96).
According to information from the AMEE office, partici-
pants’ characteristics appear to correspond rather well to those
of AMEE members. However, given that most of the charac-
teristics are not included in the AMEE-member database, it is
not possible to demonstrate that respondents were generally
representative of the members of the AMEE mailing list.
Medical education expertise and need for furthertraining
Figure 1 illustrates medical educators’ self-assessed expertise
in 12 important domains of medical education. Figure 2
illustrates the need for further training in 12 important areas of
medical education.
Challenges to medical educators
A total of 1836 comments were made by the 690 participants
who provided at least one free-text answer. Figure 3 presents
the main categories of perceived challenges that resulted
from the content analysis of respondents’ answers. Table 2
summarizes participants’ opinions concerning main challenges
and problems. For each category, characteristic citations are
presented.
While the responses regarding perceived expertise did
not differ across continents, continent-related differences were
observed with respect to the reported needs for training and
perceived challenges (data not shown).
Discussion
Summary of major findings and representativenessof the study
The results of our international web-based survey of medical
educators show that respondents’ main areas of expertise
generally comprise principles of teaching, communication
skills training, stimulation of students in self-directed learning
and student assessment. A need for further training is
particularly perceived with regard to the development of
medical education research methodology, computer-based
training, curriculum evaluation and curriculum development.
The main challenges to emerge from the qualitative analysis
were a lack of academic recognition and funding, faculty
development, time for medical education issues and institu-
tional support.
Despite the moderate response rate of 39%, this survey is
unique in light of the fact that respondents represent a
worldwide sample of medical educators from 76 countries,
working in different fields and in different positions.
The geographical distribution of response percentages reflects
the geographical distribution of AMEE members.
The characteristics of the surveyed participants indicate that
we reached dedicated medical educators who have a strong
interest in medical education and who are experts in this field:
respondents reported devoting almost two-thirds of their time
to medical education issues; 16% held a master’s degree and
7% a PhD degree in medical education. On average, respon-
dents had been actively involved in medical education
for more than 12 years. They indicated a strong interest in
medical education and viewed themselves to a large extent as
medical educators.
Self-perceived expertise of medical educators
Well-designed medical curricula and high-ranking medical-
education research publications clearly indicate that there is
Table 1. Characteristics of 860 medical educators questionedabout expertise, needs and challenges.
CharacteristicsPercentage/Mean
(�SD)
Sex
Male 53.3
Female 46.7
Mean age (years) 47.5 (�10.3)
Continent
Europe [UK] 58.3 [25.1]
America [USA] 20.0 [11.0]
Asia 14.7
Africa 3.19
Australia and Oceania 3.55
Professional background
Medical 68.1
Education 11.7
Basic sciences 10.4
Psychology 5.85
Nursing 4.77
Physiotherapy 0.72
Pharmacy 0.60
Other 14.6
Work status
Employee 34.4
Leading position 25.8
Chairman 13.5
Independent/self-employed 6.4
Academic achievement
PhD degree 26.3
Professor 27.0
Work setting
University hospital 76.1
Non-university hospital 7.13
Community-based sector 5.14
Private sector, company etc. 1.99
Other 9.70
Mean working experience in health professions (years) 19.9 (�11.1)
Mean active involvement in medical education (years) 12.9 (�10.4)
Proportion of work devoted to . . .
. . . Medical education (including teaching, evaluation,
administrative work, research in medical education)
63.0 (�30.6)
. . . Clinical work 24.4 (�27.8)
. . . Research (not medical education) 12.4 (�17.6)
Degree in medical education
Master 16.2
PhD 7.09
Planned 36.9
Authorship of medical education articles
First authorship 57.0
Co-authorship 60.9
Notes: Results are presented as percentages of participants. Age, working
experience and active involvement in medical education are reported in years.
S. Huwendiek et al.
914
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
considerable expertise in medical education. However, data
on medical educators’ self-assessed expertise are scant. This
study shows that medical educators see their main expertise as
lying in general principles of teaching, communication skills
training, stimulating students in self-directed learning and
student assessment. This is not surprising, given that these
represent core skills for medical educators. General principles
of teaching, communication skills training and assessment
activities are often part of faculty-development programmes
(Steinert et al. 2003; Clark et al. 2004) and reflect key
competencies in the day-to-day work of medical educators.
This is also supported by a study by McLeod et al. (2004), who
found that experienced teachers possess reasonable knowl-
edge of basic pedagogical principles. Other domains such as
principles of self-directed learning have received widespread
attention (Spencer & Jordan 1999; Ludmerer 2004).
Need for further training
Despite the evidence of general educational expertise,
however, participants considered their expertise with respect
to new technologies such as computer-based training and
1 2 3 4 5
General principles of teaching
Communication skills training (e.g. giving feedback)
Student assessment
Stimulating students in self-directed learning
Curriculum development
Mentoring
Course and curriculum evaluation
Tutor training
Faciliating Problem-based learning as a tutor
Technical skills training
Research methodology in medical education
Development and/ or usage of computer-based training
Figure 1. Self-assessed expertise of medical educators in 12 important domains of medical education rated on a 5-point Likert
scale (1¼ very low; 5¼ very high).
0 % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Research methodology in medical education
Development and/or usage of computer-based training
Course and curriculum evaluation
Curriculum development
Stimulating students in self-directed learning
Student assessment
Facilitating problem-based learning as a tutor
Mentoring
Tutor training
Communication-skills training (e.g., giving feedback)
Technical-skills training
General principles of teaching
None
Figure 2. Percentage of rating by medical educators (n¼ 860) about different areas of medical education as being among the six
most important areas for further training.
International medical-educator survey
915
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Academic recognition
Funding
Faculty development
Time for medical education issues
Institutional support
Teaching skills
Curriculum
Assessment
Networking
Methodological expertise and research
Role model
Lack of staff
Student problems
Figure 3. Percentage of participants who named at least one problem in relation to medical education and who mentioned
specific items as being problematic.
Table 2. Opinions of 690 medical educators concerning main challenges and problems.
Categories of response (1st to 13th) and characteristic citations
1. Academic recognition for involvement in medical education is low in comparison to clinical work and biomedical research.
Recognition for the profession of medical educator is low (most recognition is for clinical performance and research activities)
Prestige for medical education is lower
No career awards for activities in medical education
2. Funding for medical education is insufficient.
Limited financial support in medical education
College financial investment in education is insufficient
3. Need for more faculty development and scholarship
Need for more faculty development in teaching/learning
Need for greater assistance in promoting faculty development in medical education, including financial assistance to achieve this
4. Protected time for medical education issues is too scarce.
Time for teaching is not recognized as working time
Insufficient time for education and educational research
5. Institutional support for medical education issues including organizational structures is too low.
Inadequate administrative support
Lack of dedicated organizational structures to support curriculum development and research in medical education research within the medical school
(that provides practical support as well as a physical base for staff involved in this activity)
6. Teaching skills of medical teachers are not sufficient (especially modern technology etc.).
Lack of knowledge and skills in education (people feel they don’t need any training, because education is something ’you just do’)
Lack of skills using modern technology in education
7. Curricula are not adequate because of e.g. overload or lack of integration of clinical and preclinical subjects.
Inadequate curricula
Integration of clinical and preclinical studies
Curriculum overload
8. Assessment skills of teachers and standard-setting procedures are not sufficient.
Lack of standard setting in examinations
Poor assessment skills
9. Need for networking both internationally and within institutions (e.g., clinicians and educators)
Insufficient international exchange programmes about medical education
Lack of cooperation between clinicians and educators
10. Research in medical education is of low quality, underfinanced and not sufficiently taught.
The generally low quality of medical education research
Need for more training in educational research methodology
11. There is a lack of role models in medical education.
Lack of leadership in medical education
Senior medical researchers as role-models not medical educators
12. There is a lack of skilled educators.
A lack of competent personnel
Critical mass of skilled educators at institution small
13. Problems from the students’ side are lack of motivation.
Students are sometimes not sufficiently motivated
S. Huwendiek et al.
916
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
medical-education-research methodology to be low. These
aspects also topped the list of areas in which further training
was considered necessary. Excellent research in medical
education requires specific expertise in different fields.
Biomedical expertise is required on the one hand (what is
clinically relevant?) and methodological expertise in both
quantitative and qualitative approaches on the other. While
qualitative approaches differ from the classical approaches
employed in biomedical research, they are highly suitable
for medical education. In medical education, double-blinded
trials are, for example, not a realistic option. This limitation
is generally recognized and there have been very recent efforts
to promote other research methodologies in medical educa-
tion; the Association of American Medical Colleges, for
instance, sponsors the Medical Education Research Certificate
programme and AMEE offers a workshop on ‘Research
Essential Skills in Medical Education (RESME) Programme’.
The second greatest need for further training reported by
respondents relates to the use of information and communi-
cation technology (ICT) in medical education. ICT represents a
relatively new and promising tool for medical education
(McKimm et al. 2003), and additional expertise is required with
respect to both designing and integrating this approach into
the medical curriculum (Cook 2005). The need for training
in curriculum and course evaluation was of high priority for
43% of participants. This is not surprising, given the imperative
nature of rigorous evaluation of any curriculum reform in
ensuring that we are doing the best we can for our students
and our patients (Jones et al. 2001).
Challenges for medical educators
Qualitative analysis of responses to open questions showed
that the main challenges pertained to a lack of academic
recognition and funding, faculty development, time for med-
ical education issues and institutional support. At least 7 of the
13 perceived challenges included problems arising from
structural deficits (Challenges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 12).
Although various authors have called for better promotion
prospects for medical educators (Golub 2005) and more
institutional and individual incentives (Jones et al. 2001; Parry
et al. 2008), there are no research data that so clearly document
the wish of medical educators for more academic recognition.
At most university hospitals, clinical work and biomedical
research are rewarded and recognized to a much greater extent
than is the case for medical education. This lack of recognition is
mirrored by a lack of funding – the second most frequently
mentioned challenge. The increasing threat posed by a lack
of funding to medical education was recently addressed by
Parry et al. (2008) and Albanese et al. (2008); Reed et al. (2005)
found that the majority of the published medical education
research was not formally funded, with studies that did receive
support being substantially underfunded.
Participants expressed a further need for more faculty
development and scholarships in medical education.
Leadership for change comprises a core of respected and
skilled teachers, who form the centre of effective curriculum
reform (Jones et al. 2001). Although there have been
reports on successful faculty-development programmes
(Jones et al. 2001; Armstrong et al. 2003; Cooke et al. 2003;
Gruppen et al. 2003; Thibault et al. 2003), such programmes
are not established everywhere. In order to create a commu-
nity of effective agents for change, it is important that
more medical educators are able to benefit from faculty-
development programmes and take part in master’s or PhD
programmes in medical education. The third most frequently
cited challenge in our survey was a lack of protected time for
medical education issues – an aspect which was also identified
by Steinert et al. (2003).
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of our study lie in the international sample, the
high number of respondents and the use of open and closed
questions. Further, this is the first study to explore systemat-
ically the expertise, needs and problems of an international
community of dedicated medical educators. This study adds
new knowledge by investigating the expertise of and chal-
lenges faced by medical educators. Results echo, in part, that
which others have found or proposed in more limited settings.
The finding that medical educators widely perceive a need for
greater academic recognition, funding and further qualification
in medical education research is new.
Several limitations of this study should be considered in
interpreting the results. First, because we surveyed medical
educators worldwide, it was necessary to use a self-report
questionnaire instead of more objective measurements which
would have enhanced the validity of the inferences made from
the data. Second, the 39% survey-response rate is modest
although comparable to other email surveys. We cannot,
however, be certain that the results are fully representative
of members of the AMEE mailing list and medical educators in
general.
Conclusions
There is a widely perceived need for greater academic
recognition and funding of medical education activities to
meet the needs and challenges of medical educators. Formal
programmes in medical education such as master’s degrees
and PhD programmes are of vital importance when it comes
to preparing a new generation of highly qualified medical
educators who are able to ensure sustained high standards in
medical education. Such a continuously evolving, high-quality
medical education system represents a prerequisite for the
continuous delivery of high-quality medicine. In the current
international community of practice, we consider the choices
that are made concerning the distribution of resources for the
development of teachers to be fundamental to the future of
medical education and the health of society.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the numerous colleagues who gave
their time freely and participated in this study. The authors
wish to acknowledge the generous assistance of Ron Harden
and Pat Lilley in sharing the AMEE 2005 mailing list for this
International medical-educator survey
917
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
research. We are grateful to Mereke Gorsira and Dawn Girlich
for excellent help in proof-reading the manuscript.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of this article.
Notes on contributors
SOREN HUWENDIEK, MD, MME (Univ. Bern,) is a paediatrician, one of the
curriculum co-ordinators, chairman of the centre for virtual patients and e-
learning commissioner at Heidelberg Medical Faculty. His fields of interest
are virtual patients, problem-based learning and communication-skills
training. He is the winner of the AMEE Miriam Friedman Ben-David New
Educator Award 2009.
STEWART MENNIN, PhD, is a former assistant dean for Educational
Development and Research and professor emeritus, Department of Cell
Biology and Physiology, University of New Mexico School of Medicine,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. His interests relate to how concepts
of complexity and complex adaptive systems can be applied to health
profession education.
PETER DERN, MD, MME (Univ. Bern,) works as a specialist at the Urology
Department of the University Hospital of the Albert-Ludwig’s University of
Freiburg. Besides general urology, he is especially involved in paediatric
and reconstructive urology. He is an instructor in the faculty-development
programme of the dean’s office, teaches undergraduate students and is
involved in curriculum development.
MIRIAM FRIEDMAN BEN-DAVID was a professor of Medical Education,
formerly Co-Director of the Clinical Skills Certification Programme at the
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and
associate dean at the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Her main areas of interest were physician and student assessment,
programme evaluation and development of leadership in the medical
profession.
CEES VAN DER VLEUTEN, PhD, is the chairman of the Department of
Educational Development and Research and Scientific Director of the
School of Health Professions Education at Maastricht University, Faculty of
Health, Medicine and Life Sciences.
BURKHARD TONSHOFF, MD, PhD, is professor of Paediatrics and
Paediatric Nephrology at the University Children’s Hospital Heidelberg,
Germany. He currently holds the position of a vice chairman of the
Department of Paediatrics I (General Paediatrics, Metabolism,
Gastroenterology and Nephrology) and is the director of the paediatric
renal transplantation programme.
CHRISTOPH NIKENDEI, MD, MME, works at the University of Heidelberg
Medical Hospital and is responsible for the longitudinal skills lab
curriculum at the Medical Faculty and the skills lab training and
education of final year students at the Medical Hospital. Christoph
Nikendei is the winner of the AMEE Miriam Friedman Ben-David New
Educator Award 2008.
References
Albanese M, Mejicano G, Gruppen L. 2008. Perspective: Competency-based
medical education: A defense against the four horsemen of the medical
education apocalypse. Acad Med 83:1132–1139.
Armstrong EG, Doyle J, Bennett NL. 2003. Transformative professional
development of physicians as educators: Assessment of a model.
Acad Med 78:702–708.
Clark J. 2005. Five futures for academic medicine: The ICRAM scenarios.
Br Med J 331:101–104.
Clark JM, Houston TK, Kolodner K, Branch Jr WT, Levine RB, Kern DE.
2004. Teaching the teachers: National survey of faculty development
in departments of medicine of US teaching hospitals. J Gen Intern Med
19:205–214.
Cook DA. 2005. The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the
study of computer-based learning. Acad Med 80:541–548.
Cooke M, Irby DM, Debas HT. 2003. The UCSF academy of medical
educators. Acad Med 78:666–672.
Cox M, Irby DM. 2006. A new series on medical education. N Engl J Med
355:1375–1376.
Golub RM. 2005. Medical education 2005: From allegory to bull moose.
J Am Med Assoc 294:1108–1110.
Gruppen LD, Frohna AZ, Anderson RM, Lowe KD. 2003. Faculty devel-
opment for educational leadership and scholarship. Acad Med
78:137–141.
Jones R, Higgs R, de Angelis C, Prideaux D. 2001. Changing face of medical
curricula. Lancet 357:699–703.
Ludmerer KM. 2004. Learner-centered medical education. N Engl J Med
351:1163–1164.
McKimm J, Jollie C, Cantillon P. 2003. ABC of learning and teaching: Web
based learning. Br Med J 326:870–873.
McLeod PJ, Meagher T, Steinert Y, Schuwirth L, Mcleod AH. 2004. Clinical
teachers’ tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles. Med Teach
26:23–27.
Parry J, Mathers J, Thomas H, Lilford R, Stevens A, Spurgeon P. 2008. More
students, less capacity? An assessment of the competing demands on
academic medical staff. Med Educ 42:1155–1165.
Reed DA, Kern DE, Levine RB, Wright SM. 2005. Costs and funding
for published medical education research. J Am Med Assoc
294:1052–1057.
Sheridan DJ. 2006. Reversing the decline of academic medicine in Europe.
Lancet 367:1698–1701.
Spencer JA, Jordan RK. 1999. Learner centred approaches in medical
education. Br Med J 318:1280–1283.
Steinert Y, Nasmith L, McLeod PJ, Conochie L. 2003. A teaching scholars
program to develop leaders in medical education. Acad Med
78:142–149.
Thibault GE, Neill JM, Lowenstein DH. 2003. The Academy at Harvard
Medical School: Nurturing teaching and stimulating innovation. Acad
Med 78:673–681.
Tugwell P. 2004. Campaign to revitalise academic medicine kicks off.
Br Med J 328:597.
S. Huwendiek et al.
918
Med
Tea
ch D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y SU
NY
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
of
New
Yor
k at
Sto
ny B
rook
on
10/2
5/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
