Responses

Original research
Identifying features of quality in rural placements for health students: scoping review
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Methodological concerns regarding "Identifying features of quality in rural placements for health students: scoping review"
    • Adam Lebowitz, Professor (Instructor, researcher) Jichi Medical University

    A potential methodological limitation with regard to the use of Campbell et al.'s work-integrated learning (WIL) framework is a remaining concern for this otherwise competent and revealing review.

    Authors describe this framework as follows: "Campbell et al’s framework to support assurance of institution-wide quality in WIL is an evidence-based and comprehensive instrument that groups elements required for high quality WIL into four domains: student experience, curriculum design, institutional requirements and stakeholder engagement." (p.3). The two sources cited for this description are the framework itself and Campbell et al. IJWIL 2021;22:505–19. Examining the first source reveals this framework evolved from a partnership between three universities in Australia, and it is not clear to what extent the WIL framework been adopted outside of this network domestically nor internationally. Clarifying this is necessary given the international scope of this evidence overview, and authors state this in the Discussion.

    However, the claim the framework is an "evidence-based and comprehensive instrument" is problematic if it is based on the cited literature. The second citation quotes interviews with Australian higher-education faculty and administrators in a workshop setting, but this kind of self-assessment is not empirical evidence of the "quality" of learner experience. Campbell et al. appear cognizant of this when writing,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.