Describing the Evidence Base for Accreditation in Undergraduate Medical Education Internationally: A Scoping Review. (2nd July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tackett, Sean; Zhang, Christiana; Nassery, Najlla; Caufield-Noll, Christine; van Zanten, Marta
• Is Part Of: Academic medicine. Volume 95:Number 6(2020)
• Publication Date: 2019-07-02
• Subjects: Medical education -- Periodicals; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Medical personnel -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.711
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002857
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-2446

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To summarize the state of evidence related to undergraduate medical education (UME) accreditation internationally, describe from whom and where the evidence has come, and identify opportunities for further investigation. Method: The authors searched Embase, ERIC, PubMed, and Scopus from inception through January 31, 2018, without language restrictions to identify peer-reviewed articles on UME accreditation. Articles were classified as scholarship if all Glassick's criteria were met and non-scholarship if not all were met. Author, accrediting agency, and study characteristics were analyzed. Results: Database searching identified 1, 379 non-duplicate citations, resulting in 203 unique, accessible articles for full text review. Of these and with articles from hand searching added, 36 articles were classified as scholarship (30 as research) and 85 as non-scholarship. Of the 36 scholarship and 85 non-scholarship articles, respectively, 21 (58%) and 44 (52%) had an author from the United States or Canada, 8 (22%) and 11 (13%) had an author from a low- or middle-income country, and 16 (44%) and 43 (51%) had an author affiliated with a regulatory authority. Agencies from high-income countries were featured most often (scholarship: 28/60, 47%; non-scholarship: 70/101, 69%). Six (17%) scholarship articles reported receiving funding. All 30 research studies were cross-sectional or retrospective, 12 (40%) reported only analysis of accreditation documents, and 5 (17%) attempted to link accreditation with educational outcomes. Conclusions: Limited evidence exists to support current UME accreditation practices or guide accreditation system creation or enhancement. More research is required to optimize UME accreditation systems' value for students, programs, and society.