Surveying medical schools

To distribute a survey, questionnaire, or curriculum update to UK medical schools, your request must be reviewed by the Education Leads Advisory Group (ELAG). This page outlines the application process and what to expect if your request is approved.

ELAG is responsible for reviewing requests to distribute surveys, questionnaires and curricula updates to medical schools and medical students. 
ELAG review process
Download
ELAG application form
Download

If your application is successful, your survey or questionnaire will be shared with education leads at UK medical schools. However, distribution to target groups (e.g. students) is at their discretion. Typically, surveys not approved by ELAG are not circulated. Due to high volume, MSC cannot send reminder emails.

FAQs

How often are applications reviewed?

ELAG reviews applications once per month. Researchers should keep in mind that, due to the volume of applications, it may take 6-8 weeks to review applications. Researchers will be kept informed with the progress of their application. In extraordinary circumstances, applications may be expedited. Any deadlines should be highlighted when an application is submitted.

What are the potential outcomes of a review?
  1. ELAG supports distribution of the survey or questionnaire. Researchers will be informed of this outcome and, following confirmation, this will be distributed to education leads without changes.
  2. ELAG provisionally supports distribution of the survey or questionnaire subject to changes/ethics approval. Researchers will be provided with feedback on any changes required, and following approval of these by ELAG the survey will be distributed.
  3. ELAG does not support distribution of the survey or questionnaire. The group does not feel that the research is appropriate in its current format for distribution to education leads by MSC. Researchers can appeal this decision but must provide a narrative to support this with any changes made.

Should an application be successful, the survey or questionnaire will be distributed to the education leads for each UK medical school, but it will only be cascaded to the relevant group (e.g. students) at their discretion. In general, local education leads will not circulate surveys which are not approved by ELAG. Due to the volume of requests, MSC is unable to send survey reminders.

ELAG statement on FOI requests for research projects

Statement on FOI requests

We recognise the importance of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in supporting transparency and accountability of institutions. However, the MSC Education Leads group has reported an increase in recent years in FOI requests from individuals requesting data for the purpose of research.

We wish to advise researchers on the limited appropriateness of using FOI requests as a primary research method, and to discourage routine or large-scale use of FOI as a tool for academic inquiry, except where clearly justified.

While individuals and researchers have a legal right to access public information through the FOI Act, frequent and broad requests impose a significant administrative burden on universities; these requests are often managed centrally which results in delays of finding the correct person (or people) to provide data, the time taken to process and combine these data and return a response. Furthermore, FOI requests raise the possibility of bypassing normal ethical review and oversight channels, which are essential for research accountability, scientific integrity and protecting the interests of participants.

We encourage researchers to explore alternative methods for data collection, by engaging with medical schools directly through established channels such as the Education Leads Advisory Group (ELAG). ELAG is made up of members who are experts in medical education, curricula design and implementation, and who facilitate surveys and research projects to be distributed directly to medical schools via the MSC. From January – July 2024, 94% of applications to ELAG were accepted or accepted pending revisions.

FOI should be considered only when other, more collaborative approaches have been reasonably exhausted. Use of FOI should be justified in ethics applications and be as narrow in scope as reasonably practicable.