ArticlePerspectives on medical education2014
Medical education research: is participation fair?
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing recommendations on ethical aspects affecting studies in health professions education research.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Roses and Balances: A Paradigm for Constructive Ethical Review of Health Professions Education Research.Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- In response to 'Medical Education Research: is participation fair?'.Perspectives on medical education · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical researchers and ethicists emphasise the importance of equity, fairness and justice in general medical research participation. No individual or group should be over-represented or under-represented in research-there should be fair participation. Thus far little thought has been given to fair participation in medical education research. There is no evidence based answer as to whether vulnerable groups are ever exploited in medical education research, or whether other individuals or groups are overlooked. However the heavy reliance on undergraduate learners as subjects for medical education research creates two key threats to the fairness of that research. First, there is a risk that undergraduate learners, as a potentially vulnerable population, may be exploited in research settings. Often the faculty carrying out medical education research will be the same faculty that are responsible for delivering medical education and assessing medical students' competencies. It is possible as a result that medical students might feel pressured to participate in research. Second, there is a risk that other important groups of learners may be inadequately represented. Much medical education research is carried out on undergraduates and relatively little on those who have been doing CPD for many years. Thus much of our research concentrates on only a small proportion of medical learning. The relatively small amount of research carried out on those doing continuing professional development (CPD) is probably because of the difficulties of recruiting and retaining this group of learners in research programmes. Both risks threaten the integrity and usefulness of the resulting research product. Unfair participation in medical education research programmes could have serious repercussions for learners at all levels.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.