ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2014
The future of postgraduate training.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residents' Experiences with Personalized Learning in Postgraduate Training; Going Beyond Competency Based Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Mapping the Landscape: A Systematic Review of Technology Trends in Medical Education and Competency Development.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- An evaluation of UK foundation trainee doctors' learning behaviours in a technology-enhanced learning environment.BMC medical education · 2016Article
- Perceptions and Impact of Mandatory eLearning for Foundation Trainee Doctors: A Qualitative Evaluation.PloS one · 2016Article
- Training doctors to manage patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review.Journal of comorbidity · 2016Article
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
Improvements to postgraduate training have included newly designed postgraduate curricula, new forms of delivery of learning, more valid and reliable assessments, and more rigorous evaluation of training programmes. All these changes have been necessary and have now started to settle in. Now therefore is an appropriate time to look to the future of postgraduate training. Predicting the future is difficult in any course of life-however an examination of recent trends is often a good place to start. In this regard the recent trend to start to produce more doctors and healthcare professionals of the type that the population needs is likely to continue for some time to come. Medical education will also need to be more flexible in the future. The more flexible that training programmes are, the more likely that we will have experts that are sufficiently flexible to meet a range of different challenges throughout the rest of their careers. Medical education will also become more seamless in the future (at present there are probably too many major milestones and transitions in medical education). In the future educators will make much more use of technology enhanced learning, e-learning and simulation in postgraduate medical education. There will also be more pressure on postgraduate training programmes to offer value for money and to be able to demonstrate such value for money. Postgraduate medical education of the future will also be a more personalised and adaptive experience. It will be far more based on learners' individual needs and will be more responsive to those needs. Lastly postgraduate education will be much more closely supervised than it has been in the past. A common theme running through these changes will be patient centredness. This will mean safer training programmes that produce the type of doctors that patients and populations need.
Indexed as
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.