Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24958211›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Understanding how appraisal of doctors produces its effects: a realist review protocol.

Nicola Brennan, Marie Bryce, Mark Pearson, Geoff Wong, Chris Cooper, Julian Archer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Supervision training in healthcare: a realist synthesis.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Nicola BrennanCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, CAMERA, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Marie BryceCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, CAMERA, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Mark PearsonPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Geoff WongCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Chris CooperPeninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Julian ArcherCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment, CAMERA, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUK doctors are now required to participate in revalidation to maintain their licence to practise. Appraisal is a fundamental component of revalidation. However, objective evidence of appraisal changing doctors' behaviour and directly resulting in improved patient care is limited. In particular, it is not clear how the process of appraisal is supposed to change doctors' behaviour and improve clinical performance. The aim of this research is to understand how and why appraisal of doctors is supposed to produce its effect. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Realist review is a theory-driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis. It applies realist logic of inquiry to produce an explanatory analysis of an intervention that is, what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects. Using a realist review approach, an initial programme theory of appraisal will be developed by consulting with key stakeholders in doctors' appraisal in expert panels (ethical approval is not required), and by searching the literature to identify relevant existing theories. The search strategy will have a number of phases including a combination of: (1) electronic database searching, for example, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ASSIA, (2) 'cited by' articles search, (3) citation searching, (4) contacting authors and (5) grey literature searching. The search for evidence will be iteratively extended and refocused as the review progresses. Studies will be included based on their ability to provide data that enable testing of the programme theory. Data extraction will be conducted, for example, by note taking and annotation at different review stages as is consistent with the realist approach. The evidence will be synthesised using realist logic to interrogate the final programme theory of the impact of appraisal on doctors' performance. The synthesis results will be written up according to RAMESES guidelines and disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol is registered with PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014007092.

Indexed as

Employee Performance AppraisalPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality ImprovementQuality of Health CareHumansResearch DesignEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING

Identifiers

PMID24958211
PMCPMC4067866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.