ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2015
Consensus on Graduate Medical Education Financing: An Analysis of Stakeholder Responses to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Open Letter.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundIn December 2014, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives sent an open letter requesting interested parties to respond to 7 questions on graduate medical education (GME). More than 100 organizations and individuals responded.
methodsAn online search for responses yielded 27 organizations that had published their responses to the committee's open letter. Responses included answers to the 7 questions and additional recommendations. The 27 respondents proposed a total of 80 unique interventions. Each intervention was screened for concordance with those from other organizations, and then categorized as supportive, in opposition, or making no mention. Data were entered into a spreadsheet and rank ordered on the frequency of support.
resultsAt the top of the rankings were several interventions with significant support from many respondents.
conclusionsGiven the broader GME constituency represented by the 27 stakeholders in this analysis, the 80 proposed interventions represent a comprehensive inventory of the extant ideas regarding the financing, governance, and oversight of GME. This objective analysis could help both spur productive discussions and form the foundation for a larger public policy deliberation of GME financing.
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.