Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23062179›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2012

Knowledge assessment of trainees and trainers in general practice in a neighboring country. Making a case for international collaboration.

Roy Remmen, Johan Wens, Annelies Damen, Herman Duesman, Veronique Verhoeven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Roy RemmenDepartment of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, Building R, room 3,27, Antwerp, Belgium. roy.remmen@ua.ac.be
Johan Wens
Annelies Damen
Herman Duesman
Veronique Verhoeven

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Europe, a comparable scope of training in GP can be observed especially in the field of knowledge. This feasibility study determines if a knowledge test is suitable in the context of a neighboring country.

methodsA Dutch knowledge multiple choice test was used after validation of its content in Flanders (Belgium) in the academic year 2010-2011. Satisfaction with the test format was assessed. The test was taken by general practice trainees and trainers. Group scores of trainees in year 1, 2 and 3 and their trainers were compared to Dutch participants as a control group.

results80 percent of the items in the Dutch test were transferable to Flanders (Belgium). Flemish participants (Belgium) liked the test format. The scores of all Belgian participants groups were lower than the Dutch participants.

conclusionThe results among 1278 participants show that the use of the Dutch knowledge multiple-choice test is feasible in a neighboring country. At present, the individual scores can not be used for high stake decisions for trainees in Flanders (Belgium). If countries collaborate in the area of assessing GPs trainees, there would be an economical benefit due to increased efficiency. It would also lead to greater international integration of the discipline.

Indexed as

International CooperationAdultBelgiumCohort StudiesEducational MeasurementFeasibility StudiesGeneral PracticeHumansNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID23062179
PMCPMC3563548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.