Social media may promote knowledge sharing but what users do with the new knowledge and how it may influence practice remains to be known. This exploratory study used a social constructivist lens to understand how health professions educators and researchers integrate knowledge from social media into their respective practices. We purposively sampled health professions educators and researchers using the hashtags #MedEd, #HPE, and #HealthProfessionsEducation on Twitter/X. We obtained informed consent, conducted interviews via videoconference, and engaged in multiple cycles of deductive and inductive coding and analysis. Participants identified as educators and researchers (n = 12), as researchers (n = 1), or as educators (n = 1) from Canada (n = 8), the United States (n = 3), and Switzerland, Ireland, and China (n = 1, respectively). Eight participants actively used social media (i.e., creating/posting original content); six participants indicated passive use (i.e., reading/retweeting content). They discussed the importance of crafting a consumable message and social media identity to streamline the content shared. Social media\'s accessible, non-hierarchical nature may facilitate knowledge-sharing, whereas the potential spread of misinformation and technological requirements (e.g., internet access, country-specific restrictions on platforms) present barriers to uptake. Participants described using knowledge gained from social media as teaching tools, new research methodologies, new theoretical frameworks, and low-risk clinical interventions. Previous research has demonstrated how social media has empirically been used for diffusion or dissemination rather than as an active process of evidence uptake. Using knowledge translation frameworks, like the Knowledge to Action or Theoretical Domains frameworks, to inform social media-based knowledge sharing activities in health professions education is recommended.

Meaningful service user involvement in health professions education requires integrating knowledge held by \"lay\" people affected by health challenges into professional theories and practices. Involving service users redefines whose knowledge \"counts\" and implies a shift in power. Such a shift is especially significant in the mental health field, where power imbalances between health professionals and service users are magnified. However, reviews of the literature on service user involvement in mental health professional education do little to explore how power manifests in this work. Meanwhile critical and Mad studies scholars have highlighted that without real shifts in power, inclusion practices can lead to harmful consequences. We conducted a critical review to explore how power is addressed in the literature that describes service user involvement in mental health professions education. Our team used a co-produced approach and critical theories to identify how power implicitly and explicitly operates in this work to unearth the inequities and power structures that service user involvement may inadvertently perpetuate. We demonstrate that power permeates service user involvement in mental health professional education but is rarely made visible. We also argue that by missing the opportunity to locate power, the literature contributes to a series of epistemic injustices that reveal the contours of legitimate knowledge in mental health professions education and its neoliberal underpinnings. Ultimately, we call for a critical turn that foregrounds power relations to unlock the social justice-oriented transformative potential of service user involvement in mental health professions education and health professions education more broadly.

There is increasing interest in the use of ethnography as a qualitative research approach to explore, in depth, issues of culture in health professions education (HPE). Our specific focus in this article is incorporating the digital into ethnography. Digital technologies are pervasively and increasingly shaping the way we interact, behave, think, and communicate as health professions educators and learners. Understanding the contemporary culture(s) of HPE thus means paying attention to what goes on in digital spaces. In this paper, we critically consider some of the potential issues when the field of ethnography exists outside the space time continuum, including the need to engage with theory in research about technology and digital spaces in HPE. After a very brief review of the few HPE studies that have used digital ethnography, we scrutinize what can be gained when ethnography encompasses the digital world, particularly in relation to untangling sociomaterial aspects of HPE. We chart the shifts inherent in conducting ethnographic research within the digital landscape, specifically those related to research field, the role of the researcher and ethical issues. We then use two examples to illustrate possible HPE research questions and potential strategies for using digital ethnography to answer those questions: using digital tools in the conduct of an ethnographic study and how to conduct an ethnography of a digital space. We conclude that acknowledging the pervasiveness of technologies in the design, delivery and experiences of HPE opens up new research questions which can be addressed by embracing the digital in ethnography.

Recently, the balance between value and necessity of ethical review of health professions education research has been debated. At present, there are large differences in how ethical review of research proposals for health professions education is organized. We present a framework that describes the organization of ethical review in health professions education research, based on the interpersonal circumplex model, also known as Leary\'s Rose. The framework is based on the two main balances in ethical review of health professions education research, being the protectiveness for the subjects and how ethical review is organized and responsibilities are shared. The axis/balance of protectiveness ranges between the extremes \"paternalistic protective\" to \"liberal permissive\". The axis/balance of organization and responsibility ranges between the extremes of \"centralized\" to \"local/decentralized\". This model offers insight in the position of an ethical review board and shows the dynamics of the decisions for ethical approval and the consequences of the different approaches to the organization of ethical review of health professions education research.

Recently, due to scarce resources and the need to provide an evidence-base for healthcare professions\' education (HPE), HPE research centres internationally have turned to identifying priorities for their research efforts. Engaging a range of stakeholders in research priority setting exercises has been posited as one way to address the issues around reducing researcher bias and increasing social accountability. However, assigning individuals to single a priori stakeholder groups is complex, with previous research overlooking cross-category membership and agreement between individuals across groups. Further, analyses have pitched stakeholder groups against one another in an attempt to understand who prioritises what, and often fails to grasp rationales underlying priorities. A deeper understanding of who prioritises what research areas and why is required to consider applicability of results across contexts and deepen social accountability and transferability. A web-based Q-methodological approach with n=91 participants (who) from ten pre-classified stakeholder groups was employed with post-sort interviews (why). Sixty-seven Q-set items (Chinese/English languages) were developed from previous research (what). Participants were mainly from Taiwan, although international researchers were included. Q-sorting was undertaken in groups or individually, followed by post-sort interviews. Eighty-six participants\' Q-sorts were included in the final analysis. Intercorrelations among Q-sorts were factor-analysed (Centroid method) and rotated analytically (Varimax method). Interviews were thematically analysed. Six Viewpoints with eigenvalues exceeding 1 were identified (range = 3.55-10.34; 42% total variance; 35/67 topics), mapping high/low priorities for research foci: Workplace teaching and learning; Patient dignity and healthcare safety; Professionalism and healthcare professionals\' development; Medical ethics and moral development; Healthcare professionals\' retention and success; Preparing for clinical practice. Eighteen rationales for prioritisation were identified: impact, organisational culture and deficit of educators/practitioners were most highly cited. Each Viewpoint, held by multiple stakeholders, comprised a unique set of topic-groupings, target study participants, beneficiaries and rationales. The two most prolific Viewpoints represent how different stakeholder groups highlight key complementary perspectives of healthcare professions\' education in the workplace (efficacy of teaching/learning practices, application of knowledge/values). By illuminating the detail around each Viewpoint, and presenting an holistic description of the who-what-why in research priority setting, others wishing to undertake such an exercise can more easily identify how stakeholder Viewpoints and their epistemic beliefs can help shape healthcare professions\' research agendas more generally.

The field of health professions education research draws inspiration from many disciplines, creating a dynamic socio-cultural context that is replete with contests over research rigour and quality. These knowledge politics are never definitively resolved. Thus, an important question that any graduate program established within the field has to contend with is what should constitute expertise in HPER. In this paper we explore interrelated contextual, conceptual and procedural dimensions of expertise to substantiate our suggestions for a core curriculum for graduate students in health professions education. We argue that an expert in health professions education research should have both an appreciation of when knowledge politics are relevant to their research process as part of their procedural knowledge and also an awareness of why these politics can affect their work as part of their conceptual knowledge.

Many processes and practices in the field of health professions education have been based more on tradition and assumption than on evidence and theory. As the field matures, researchers are increasingly seeking evidence to support various teaching and assessment methods. However, there is a tendency to focus on a limited set of topics, leaving other areas under-examined and limiting our understanding of the field. By explicitly examining areas that are undescribed, i.e. absences in the literature, researchers and scholars have the potential to enrich our practice and our field\'s understanding of what counts as legitimate research. Using the theoretical framework of Bourdieu\'s concept of field, we conducted an instrumental case study of three published research projects that each had a finding of absence. We examined each case individually, and then analyzed across cases. Our dataset included published papers, peer-review feedback, and reflective notes. Each of the cases interrogated a different form of absence: absence of content, absence of research, and absence of evidence. While the typology suggests that each absence was different, there were similarities across cases in terms of challenges in \'proving\' the reality of the absence and some disbelief or discomfort with accepting the findings as rigorous and/or legitimate. Absence research has potential to add to our theoretical and methodological approaches to the field. This type of research is potentially an exciting and productive new way for scholars to shed light on aspects of health professions education that have received limited attention to date.

This article critically examines three assumptions underlying recent efforts to advance interdisciplinary research-defined in this article as communication and collaboration between researchers across academic disciplines (e.g. Sociology, Psychology, Biology)-and examines these assumptions\' implications for health professions education research (HPER). These assumptions are: (1) disciplines are silos that inhibit the free flowing of knowledge across fields and stifle innovative thinking; (2) interdisciplinary research generates a better understanding of the world as it brings together researchers from various fields of expertise capable of tackling complex problems; and (3) interdisciplinary research reduces fragmentation across groups of researchers by eliminating boundaries. These assumptions are among the new beliefs shaping the contemporary academic arena; they orient academics\' and university administrators\' decisions toward expanding interdisciplinary research and training, but without solid empirical evidence. This article argues that the field of HPER has largely adopted the premises of interdisciplinary research but has not yet debated the potential effects of organizing around these premises. The authors hope to inspire members of the HPER community to critically examine the ubiquitous discourse promoting interdisciplinarity, and engage in reflection about the future of the field informed by evidence rather than by unsubstantiated assumptions. For example: Should research centres and graduate programs in HPER encourage the development of interdisciplinary or disciplinary-trained researchers? Should training predominantly focus on methods and methodologies or draw more on disciplinary-based knowledge? What is the best route toward increasing the field\'s profile within academia and attracting the best students and researchers to engage in HPER? These are questions that merit attention at the current juncture as the future of the HPER field relies on decisions made in the present time.

Preparing health professionals in health promotion (HP) and disease prevention is essential for improvement of population health, community HP, and better health care for individuals. The aim of this article is to describe an HP project in the form of a major self-directed project-based learning task integrated within the curriculum in the second year of the medical degree program at United Arab Emirates University. The project introduces students to public health and HP practice and develops students\' literature searching, writing, presentation skills, and team work. Students learn the principles underlying behavioral change, and the design of HP programs and materials, through a lecture format. Small groups of students each choose a specific health topic for their project. Over 11 weeks, students obtain information about their topic from appropriate sources (library, PubMed, Google Scholar, credible health sources such as World Health Organization). Using the principles learned in the lectures, they develop appropriate materials for their target audience: for example, posters, a pamphlet, social media content, or a video or radio message. Students seek advice from specialist faculty as needed. In week 12, each team presents their project background, rationale, and materials to their colleagues in a seminar format open to all faculty. They then submit the materials they developed for assessment. Group marks are assigned for presentations and materials. Key concepts are assessed by multiple choice questions in comprehensive course examinations. By participation in the HP project, many students develop a solid background in prevention. The information retrieval, writing, and presentation skills, as well as experience of team work, are valuable both for the remaining years of their training and their future careers.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education faculty bear the responsibility of demonstrating active research and scholarship; however, faculty who choose education-focused careers may face unique obstacles related to the lack of promotion tracks, funding, career options, and research opportunities. Our objective was to address education research and scholarship barriers by providing a collaborative peer-mentoring environment and improve the production of research and scholarly outputs.
METHODS: We describe a Medical Education Scholarship Support (MESS) group created in 2013. MESS is an interprofessional, multidisciplinary peer-mentoring education research community that now spans multiple institutions. This group meets monthly to address education research and scholarship challenges. Through this process, we develop new knowledge, research, and scholarly products, in addition to meaningful collaborations.
RESULTS: MESS originated with eight founding members, all of whom still actively participate. MESS has proven to be a sustainable unfunded local community of practice, encouraging faculty to pursue health professions education (HPE) careers and fostering scholarship. We have met our original objectives that involved maintaining 100% participant retention; developing increased knowledge in at least seven content areas; and contributing to the development of 13 peer-reviewed publications, eight professional presentations, one Masters of Education project, and one educational curriculum.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of individuals engaged in HPE research continues to rise. The MESS model could be adapted for use at other institutions, thereby reducing barriers HPE researchers face, providing an effective framework for trainees interested in education-focused careers, and having a broader impact on the education research landscape.