BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4//
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:20250905T130347EDT-1824fkmF7T@132.216.98.100
DTSTAMP:20250905T170347Z
DESCRIPTION:\nLara Varpio\n	\n	Putting the House of Knowledge Synthesis in Or
 der: Differentiating Between Eight Different Kinds of Literature Reivews\n
 \nIN-PERSON ONLY\n\nWe gratefully acknowledge the Newell Trust in Health S
 ciences Education for providing support for this event.\n\nAbstract:\n	Rese
 archers in medical education are increasingly relying on literature review
 s / knowledge syntheses—in fact\, a recent bibliometric analysis revealed 
 that the number of reviews published in core medical education journals ha
 s increased by 2620% over the last two decades (Maggio et al\, 2020). The 
 most prevalent types are systematic and scoping reviews. Unfortunately\, o
 ther kinds of reviews (e.g.\, narrative) have often been deemed unscientif
 ic and without value in medical education. Consequently\, medical educatio
 n has a skewed perspective on how literature can be synthesized and why (i
 .e.\, the purposes) syntheses can be conducted. This is deeply problematic
  because it blinds our community to synthesis approaches that can meaningf
 ully add new insights and knowledge to medical education. A foundational r
 eason for the current overreliance on systematic and scoping reviews is th
 at these types of knowledge syntheses are familiar to medical educators: s
 cholars know the kinds of questions these reviews answer\, the methods for
  conducting them\, and the markers of rigor to be expected. I contend that
  medical educators would use other types of literature reviews if they wer
 e more informed about them.\n\nAfter this workshop\, participants will be 
 able to:\n\n\n	distinguish between 8 different types of literature reviews:
  systematic\, scoping\, realist\, narrative\, critical\, state-of-the-art\
 , theory integrative\, and meta-ethnographic reviews\n	articulate\, for eac
 h type of review\, the research questions they answer\, how to execute the
 m\, and their markers of rigor\n\n\nBio:\n	Dr. Lara Varpio is Professor of 
 Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Philade
 lphia and the Co-Director of Research in Medical Education at The Children
 ’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She started these positions in 2022\, after s
 erving for 9 years at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Scie
 nces\, and 6 years at the University of Ottawa\, Canada..\n\nDr. Varpio’s 
 research investigates how individual clinicians can shape the medical prof
 ession\, and how the profession shapes individual clinicians. In that rese
 arch\, she uses qualitative methodologies and methods\, integrated with th
 eories from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Her most recent work is re
 lated to: the perilous myths of professional identity formation\, and how 
 the concept of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning is failing medical
  education. She mentors many individual health professions educators from 
 several specialties in a wide range of topics\, and is internationally rec
 ognized for her expertise in qualitative research methods and methodologie
 s\, and with a wide array of different theories.\n\nDr. Varpio has secured
  over $5.7millionUSD in research grants\, has authored +150 peer-reviewed 
 conference presentations\, disseminated +180 peer-reviewed publications\, 
 and given keynote talks and invited sessions at all the major medical educ
 ation international conferences. Dr. Varpio was recently selected by the F
 ulbright Scholarship committee to mentor and host a Fulbright Scholar awar
 d winner from Australia. In 2019\, she was selected as one of twelve inaug
 ural Karolinska Fellows. She was co-host of the KeyLIME podcast\, and move
 d with the show to the Karolinska Intitutet\, and now co-hosts the PAPERs 
 Podcast.\n\n \n\n\nRésumé \n	Les chercheurs et chercheuses en éducation méd
 icale ont de plus en plus recours aux méthodes de revue de la littérature 
 et de synthèse des connaissances. En effet\, une récente analyse bibliomét
 rique a révélé que le nombre de revues parues dans les principales publica
 tions d’éducation médicale avait augmenté de 2 620 % au cours des vingt de
 rnières années (Maggio et coll.\, 2020). Les deux types les plus fréquents
  sont la revue systématique et l’examen de la portée. Malheureusement\, le
 s autres types de revues\, comme la revue narrative\, sont souvent considé
 rés comme non scientifiques et sans valeur par le milieu de l’éducation mé
 dicale. Il en résulte une vision erronée des méthodes de synthèse de la li
 ttérature (le comment) et des raisons de dresser une synthèse (le pourquoi
 ). Cette situation pose un sérieux problème\, car notre communauté ferme l
 a porte à des approches pouvant générer un lot considérable de nouvelles c
 onnaissances. Le recours excessif à la revue systématique et à l’examen de
  la portée que l’on constate actuellement s’explique principalement par la
  familiarité des éducateurs médicaux avec ces méthodes. En effet\, ils con
 naissent les types de questions auxquelles ces revues répondent\, la façon
  de les réaliser ainsi que le degré de rigueur auquel ils peuvent s’attend
 re. S’ils étaient mieux informés sur les autres types de revues de la litt
 érature\, ils en feraient probablement usage.\n\nAu terme de cet atelier\,
  les participants et participantes seront en mesure de : \n\n· distinguer 
 huit différents types de revues de la littérature : revue systématique\, e
 xamen de la portée\, examen réaliste\, revue narrative\, examen critique\,
  étude de l’état actuel\, examen par intégration de théories et méta-ethno
 graphie\;\n\n· décrire\, pour chaque type de revue\, les questions de rech
 erche auxquelles elles répondent\, la façon de les réaliser et les marqueu
 rs de rigueur.\n\n \n
DTSTART:20250123T140000Z
DTEND:20250123T160000Z
SUMMARY:IHSE Meeting
URL:/ihse/channels/event/ihse-meeting-361588
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR