REVIEW PROTOCOL TEMPLATE Recommendation 1

1 1/12 REVIEW PROTOCOL TEMPLATE Recommendation 1 The effectiveness of health professionals education and training institutions designing and implementing continuous development programmes for faculty and teaching staff relevant to the evolving health-care needs of their communities. A systematic REVIEW REVIEW PROTOCOL Organization, City, Country: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom Prepared by: Date: Alison Andrew July 2011 Senior supervisor Francesca Celletti Project lead Rebecca Bailey Research team members Rachel Marie Amiya, Dolea Carmen Mihaela, Annette Mwansa Nkowane, Erica Lynette Wheeler, Rodrigo Rodriguez Fernandez.

2 2/12 Table of Contents .. 1 TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES FOR FACULTY AND TEACHING STAFF, INCLUDING CURRENT HEALTH WORKERS, WHICH UPDATE AND DEVELOP TEACHING SKILLS ( CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN), IN BOTH UNDERGRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMS, ON THE QUANTITY, QUALITY AND RELEVANCE OF HEALTH 1 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW .. 1 ..4 ..4 Question ..4 gathering and study selection ..5 of risk of bias and data extraction ..7 synthesis ..8 ..8 implications ..8 ..8 Appendix A: database search strategy.

3 10 Appendix B: data extraction forms (see attached excel workbook) ..12 Appendix C: Example of databases, websites and journals which could be searched ..12 3/12 Background Include definitions, answers to background questions, description of the intervention and how it might work to help better understand the question. This question refers to the effectiveness of continuous development programmes for faculty and teaching staff which are focused on which updating and developing teaching skills. Such interventions could be in the form of one off workshops, seminars or short courses or continuing programmes such as fellowship schemes; all aimed at improving teaching ability.

4 There have been systematic literature reviews that have analysed the effectiveness of such interventions (most notably Steinert et al. 2006 reviewed the effectiveness of such interventions in medical education) yet the primary issue lies in the outcomes measured. Few studies have measured the effect of such programmes past the level of participants reaction to the programme. Studies that measured further outcomes (learning in the form of a change in attitudes, knowledge or skills, a change in behavior or results in the form of a change in the system/ organizational practice or a changes in learning or performance of health students) were those included in Steinert's systematic REVIEW .

5 However, since the outcomes of interest in this systematic REVIEW are the quantity, quality and relevance of health graduates and health practitioners the only outcomes relevant to this literature REVIEW are those measured are changes in the quantity, quality and relevance of health graduates or professionals that can be specifically attributed to such continuous development programmes for faculty and teaching staff. Other process outcomes will be recorded but are not relevant for the purpose of evaluation of evidence.

6 Objective To investigate the effectiveness of Continuous Development Programmes for faculty and teaching staff, including current health workers, which update and develop teaching skills ( curriculum development and instructional design), in both undergraduate and postgraduate programs, on the quantity, quality and relevance of health professionals. REVIEW Question For the purposes of this literature REVIEW , the population, intervention, comparators and outcomes (PICO) framework to inform the REVIEW objectives are presented below.

7 Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Faculty and teaching staff programs Continuous Development Programmes for faculty and teaching staff which update and develop teaching skills No Continuous Development Programmes for faculty and teaching staff which update and develop teaching skills Quantity, quality and relevance of health professionals 4/12 Evidence gathering and study selection See Appendix C for examples of databases, websites and journals which may be searched. Evidence gathering The evidence gathering approach will have four components: Searching databases The databases in the table below will be searched with a pre-determined strategy as detailed in Appendix A.

8 In cases where the search results are small in number, search terms will be reduced to maximize the search sensitivity. Topic/Field Database Ex: Education Ex: ERIC, Campbell, Education Research Health PUBMED Hand searching The following journals and websites will be hand-searched for relevant articles: Resources that will be searched by hand Teaching and Teacher Education Academic Medicine Medical Teacher International Journal for Academic Development Biomed ( ) WHO's Library Database (WHOLIS) Website of the Foundation of Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER)

9 International Council of Nurses Council on Graduate Medical Education American Academy of Family Physicians American College of Physicians 5/12 Expert network consultations A network of health professional education experts will be consulted by email to identify additional grey literature or research that has not been found through the above processes. The following experts and networks will be contacted. Experts and networks will be contacted regarding additional articles Consultation with relevant members of the Core Guidelines Development Group Reference searches Bibliographies of those papers that match the eligibility criteria below will be searched by hand to identify any further, relevant references, which will be subject to the same screening and selection process.

10 Eligibility criteria After gathering the evidence, the following eligibility criteria will be applied to the results and all identified references screened independently by two reviewers (Aaron Stoertz and Francesca Celletti) using a three-stage approach to reviewing the title, abstract and full text. Types of studies: All types of evaluative study designs are eligible for inclusion, including grey literature. Studies will not be selected on methodological quality. Types of participants: This is a succinct description of the types of participants that you will include.