Contrasting Educational Strategies in Health Sciences vs. Non-Health Sciences Disciplines: Insights from Scopus Database
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023439Keywords:
Educational Strategies, Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Bibliometric, Contrasting, ScopusAbstract
Introduction: education plays a pivotal role in shaping the knowledge, skills, and competencies of individuals across various fields of study.
Objective: to contrast educational strategies used in health sciences with those employed in disciplines unrelated to health.
Methods: the present study is primarily based on primary literature, mostly academic articles, indexed in the Scopus database. The aim of using this method is to quantify the documents referring to bibliometric analysis as a working tool in two categories for subsequent analysis: non-health-related categories (NH) and health-related categories (H). The groups were examined separately with a productivity and citation analysis to assess their impact.
Results: during this period, there is a gradual increase in the number of documents in both groups. In the NH group, the number of documents increased from 907 in 2013 to 2422 in 2022. Meanwhile, in the H group, the number of documents increased from 192 in 2013 to 490 in 2022. Overall, there is an increase in the number of documents in both groups over time, with the NH group exhibiting a higher number of documents compared to the H group in each year. it is observed that both groups have a low level of international collaboration, although the NH group shows a slightly higher proportion. On the other hand, the H group exhibits a higher proportion of national collaboration and a lower lack of collaboration compared to the NH group. Both groups demonstrate a high level of institutional collaboration. A greater heterogeneity is observed in areas other than health.
Conclusions: this study has provided an integrated view of research in health-related and non-health-related categories. The results emphasize the importance of promoting international collaboration and strengthening collaboration networks in both groups. Furthermore, key thematic areas in the field of nursing education, healthcare and clinical practice, human behavior and psychology, and teaching and learning have been identified. These findings can be useful for researchers, educators, and healthcare professionals interested in addressing these topics in the context of training and clinical practice, as well as for those seeking to understand current trends and interrelationships in the field of education
References
1. Saliceti F. Educate for Creativity: New Educational Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015;197:1174–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.374.
2. Wensing M, Fluit C, Grol R. Educational strategies. Improving Patient Care, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2013, p. 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118525975.ch12.
3. Takaki P, Dutra M. Data science in education: interdisciplinary contributions. Advanced Notes in Information Science 2022;2:149–60. https://doi.org/10.47909/anis.978-9916-9760-3-6.94.
4. Herman DD, Weiss CH, Thomson CC. Educational Strategies for Training in Quality Improvement and Implementation Medicine. ATS Scholar 2020;1:20–32. https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2019-0012PS.
5. González-Valiente CL, Roque D de LS, Rodríguez YS. Producción científica sobre e-learning en América Latina, un estudio preliminar desde la base de datos SciELO. Revista Cubana de Educación Médica Superior 2015;29:155–65.
6. Kim RH, Mellinger JD. Educational strategies to foster bedside teaching. Surgery 2020; 167:532–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.06.007.
7. Wallace CT, Barbara MR, Dante SGR, Verón S, Echaveste I. De la virtualidad y la presencialidad en la investigación interdisciplinar. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias 2023;2:190–190. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2023190.
8. Nah IW, Kang D-S, Lee D-H, Chung Y-C. A bibliometric evaluation of research performance in different subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009;60:1138–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21054.
9. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015;105:1809–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z.
10. Castillo JIR. Identifying promising research areas in health using bibliometric analysis. Data & Metadata 2022;1:10–10. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202210
11. Ledesma F, González BEM. Bibliometric indicators and decision making. Data & Metadata 2022;1:9–9. https://doi.org/10.56294/dm20229
12. Cutrer WB, Sullivan WM, Fleming AE. Educational Strategies for Improving Clinical Reasoning. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care 2013;43:248–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.005.
13. Bligh J, Prideaux D, Parsell G. PRISMS: new educational strategies for medical education. Medical Education 2001;35:520–1. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00984.x.
14. Pettersson F. On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts – a review of literature. Educ Inf Technol 2018;23:1005–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3.
15. González-Valiente CL, Costas R, Noyons E, Steinerová J, Šušol J. Terminological (di) Similarities between Information Management and Knowledge Management: a Term Co-Occurrence Analysis. Mobile Netw Appl 2021;26:336–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-020-01643-y
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Daniel Santos Silva-Nieves, Arthur Giuseppe Serrato-Cherres, Judith Marita Soplin Rojas, Arturo César Pomacaja Flores, Pamela Jennifer Sullca Tapia (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
