SynthesisPloS one2016
Training Standards Statements of Family Medicine Postgraduate Training - A Review of Existing Documents Worldwide.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing the choice of specialization - a cross-sectional study with civilian medical students and prospective medical officers in Germany.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Mental health of postgraduate trainees in primary care: a cross-sectional study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- How to ensure basic competencies in end of life care - a mixed methods study with post-graduate trainees in primary care in Germany.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Swiss students and young physicians want a flexible goal-oriented GP training curriculum.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Article
- New paths in post-graduate medical training in general practice - 8 years of experience with the pilot project VerbundweiterbildungGMS journal for medical education · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor the effective and safe management of complex care needs for patients in community settings, high quality family medicine (FM) training programmes are needed. In less primary care oriented countries, training standards statements for FM postgraduate training are less commonly found. The aim of this study was to review international training standards statements in FM postgraduate training and to catalogue these statements to be used as a best practice standard guide for FM training programs in Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsA structured three-tiered search was performed: a systematic literature search in MEDLINE®; a search of international indicator databases; and a search in grey literature, consisting of a survey of international experts and a search in "Google (Scholar)". From all identified documents, training standards statements were extracted, translated and summarized into categories referring to the same quality aspect.
resultsThe search strategy revealed 25 relevant documents (MEDLINE® n = 15, databases n = 2, experts n = 7, "Google" n = 1), containing 337 training standards statements. These were summarized into 80 statements. They covered structure quality (n = 35); process quality (n = 43); and two training standards statements referred to outcome quality (n = 2).
conclusionA broad range of internationally sourced training standards statements for FM postgraduate training could be identified from countries with well-established primary care systems. Only few statements internationally referred to outcome quality, expressing the difficulty in assessing outcome. The resulting inventory of training standards statements for FM postgraduate training can serve as a resource for institutions seeking to formalise and systematise FM training at regional or national levels.
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.