Medical education research in India: Ladders and snakes

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the article “Navigating complexities: Improving evidence quality in Indian medical education research.”^[1] The authors provide a succinct overview of Indian medical education research.

I agree that the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) Fellowship and the Advanced Course in Medical Education by the National Medical Commission have positively impacted educational research. The FAIMER fellowship was examined previously.^[2] The authors mention the simplistic nature of research in India, and I agree that more complex issues may need to be addressed. The fellowship has a limited period to conduct, analyze, and present the research and this could impact the studies being done. The lack of funding for educational research is also a limitation.

Getting protected time for research is another challenge. Faculty has multiple roles and increasing demands on their time. In the United States, faculty writing groups and having protected uninterrupted writing time increased productivity.^[3] A national-level journal for health professions education is a great idea. India has thousands of health professions education institutions, and a journal will boost educational research and innovation. A recent article highlights several of the points mentioned by the authors of this editorial.^[4] Funding, manpower, infrastructure, policies, and incentives are mentioned. Collaborative research, research integrity, ethics, translational research, and research based on the needs of society are highlighted. Health professions education is advancing rapidly, and education should be innovative and flexible to prepare students for future challenges. Research is important to identify and address gaps and challenges and guide policymaking. Research from within the country is more effective in doing this than research from other settings. Language may also be an issue as English is not the first language of most Indian researchers.

India has several systems of medicine and data on research output from different systems would be valuable. Data on the regional distribution of research is also important. The areas being researched and the methods employed will be useful. The authors mention that studies mostly focus on single-site quantitative surveys, stakeholder perceptions (Kirkpatrick Level 1), comparing teaching–learning methods, and evaluations of faculty development programs. Measuring perceptions at higher levels is challenging. Incorporating a proper theoretical framework could be another challenge. Publications from developing nations like India may not be easily accepted in mainstream journals.

There has been a steady increase in publications. The challenge now is to upgrade their quality and relevance.