Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26038686›Full record

ArticleGMS Zeitschrift fur medizinische Ausbildung2015

Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?

Elisabeth Flum, Roar Maagaard, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Nigel Scarborough, Nynke Scherpbier, Thomas Ledig, Marco Roos, Jost Steinhäuser

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in GMS Zeitschrift fur medizinische Ausbildung, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Family Physicians Working at Hospitals: A 20-Year Nationwide Trend Analysis in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Elisabeth FlumUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.
Roar MaagaardUniversity of Aarhus, Department of Medical Education, Aarhus, Denmark.
Maciek Godycki-CwirkoMedical University of Lodz, Centre for Family and Community Medicine, Lodz, Poland.
Nigel ScarboroughHealth Education East Midlands, Nottingham, The United Kingdom.
Nynke ScherpbierRadboud University Medical Centre, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thomas LedigUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marco RoosUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute of General Practice, Erlangen, Germany.
Jost SteinhäuserUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany ; University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Institute of Family Medicine, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries.

methodsA semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved.

resultsFM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries.

conclusionsLongitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonPrimary Health CareClinical CompetenceCompetency-Based EducationCurriculumEducational MeasurementEuropeFamily PracticeGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesPilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentcompetency-based educationcurriculumPrimary health cartraining

Identifiers

PMID26038686
PMCPMC4446652

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.