MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410251136 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2025.2501254

Global research aims for the study of cost and value in health professions education: A Delphi study of international experts

2025· article· en· W4410251136 on OpenAlexaff
Martin G. Tolsgaard, Leizl Joy Nayahangan, David A. Cook, Gorm Roager Madsen, Ryan Brydges, Susan van Schalkwyk, Carvalho Filho, You You, Jennifer Cleland

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodMedical educationValue (mathematics)Health professionsDelphiPsychologyMedicineEngineering ethicsManagement sciencePolitical scienceHealth careComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts. METHODS: The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights. RESULTS: From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field. CONCLUSION: The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.436 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207