Essay On Health Education Research

According to Regehr (2004), many researches have been conducted in the field of medical education. In this context, Bligh and Brice (2008) also highlighted that something is missed in the field of medical education. Most of the research in the medical field is based on theoretical aspects and not on practical research. Further, many researchers claimed that their study failed to effectively tie curricular interventions to long-term outcomes. Even many studies failed to meet the ethical principles and standards. Mainly research in the education field is conducted in the area of attitude and skills required for the structure of the profession (Rees et al., 2015).  Competencies in the medical profession an individual are seen as the most important aspect. One area that gains importance in health education is the “understanding of professionalism” in a broader term. The focus of studies is also on the experiences of medical school as a function of an individual’s traits including gender, age, ethnicity, and race (Rees et al., 2015). 

 

However, medical education research lacks command and coherence effort toward the solution of big questions and areas in this field.  But on the other side, Rees et al., (2015) favored the aspect that health education research is not rocket science that can be based on a linear system and structure and gives defined outcomes by following a well-defined set of factors. Rather, this is the field that considers analogies to the physical sciences and such efforts shift the focus of study from the search for proof to reaching an understanding of the problems. For instance; at some medical schools broader definition of scholarship has emerged with corresponding changes. The scholarship of teaching applied by medical schools is unnecessarily narrow and excludes the productivity that is important in medical field and also neglect legitimate academic activity.

 

 

Regehr (2010) in his article concluded that evolution of the health  education has been restricted to the underlying model of science and failed to focus on the aspects that are valuable in helping to evolve this field. Ethics also play a significant role in the field of health education (Regehr, 2004). There are different ethical standards that researchers have to follow such as procedural ethics, balancing beneficence, integrity and altruism, and situational ethics (Regehr, 2004). Further, this field faces challenges in collecting data when conducting quantitative research (Bligh and Brice, 2008). Through ethnographic observation, data is collected but there are many aspects that require concern. Such consent of participants is required while capturing naturalistic data in the operation theatre. Further, developing ethical relationships in research is also difficult.  The issues are also in the area of role conflict and power dynamics and managing multiple identities in an acute setting. The limited research in the areas of heal education is due to the troubling questions raised during qualitative research (Hooper et al., 2018).  These questions need to be answered at the moment otherwise these lead to severe ethical consequences. Hence, from the above discussion, it can be said that health education research is limited and revolved around the science model and failed to capture the areas that are important. There are many factors behind such failure such as a higher level of ethical principles during research, so all of these limit research in the medical field to the theoretical area.

 

On the other side, scholarship of teaching is all about improving techniques that are used for student learning. However, both of these areas differ as scholarship of teaching is all about using different practices so that student can learn and develop skills. Whereas, health education research is related to depth investigation in a specific field. The teaching and research are two different areas but this can be combined in order to get more benefits. Hence, both these fields are different but developing.

 

Hooper, B., Gupta, J., Bilics, A. and Taff, S.D., 2018. Balancing efficacy and effectiveness with philosophy, history, and theory-building in occupational therapy education research. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(1), p.11.

 

 

Rees, C., Francis, B. and Pollard, A., 2015. The state of medical education research: what can we learn from the outcomes of the UK Research Excellence Framework?. Medical education, 49(5), pp.446-448.

 

 

Regehr, G., 2004. Trends in medical education research. Academic Medicine, 79(10), pp.939-947.

 

 

Regehr, G., 2010. It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Medical education, 44(1), pp.31-39.

 

 

Bligh, J. and Brice, J., 2008. What is the value of good medical education research?. Medical Education, 42(7), pp.652-653.

 

 

Hooper B. et al. (2018) Balancing efficacy and effectiveness with philosophy, h******ory, and theory-building in occupational therapy education research. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 6(1),