ArticleSaudi medical journal2017
Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The postgraduate medical educational climate assessed by the Danish Residency Educational Climate Test (DK-RECT): a validation and cross-sectional observational study.BMC medical education · 2023Observational
- Measuring Performance of Rural Mental Healthcare Services in Saudi Arabia.Psychology research and behavior management · 2023Article
- Validation of the French translation of the Dutch residency educational climate test.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board program using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) and to explore residents' perception of different domains of the learning environment. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. The D-RECT instrument was distributed to all residents at all training sites of the Saudi psychiatry training program. It is a reliable and valid instrument to measure educational environment at the postgraduate level. Mean scores are presented, t-tests, analysis of variance, and post hoc analysis were used to compare subgroups and pearson's correlation was used to assess relationships. Results: Seventy-eight out of 96 residents responded (81.25%), one third of them were female. Overall D-RECT score was 2.76±0.55. The supervision subscale scored 2.83±0.83, coaching and assessment scored 2.60±0.73, feedback scored 2.00±0.85, team work scored 2.81±0.86, peer collaboration scored 3.54±0.84, professional relations between consultants scored 2.71±0.95, work is adapted to residents' competence scored 2.71±0.86, consultants' attitudes scored 2.71±0.86, formal education scored 2.68±0.72, and patient handover subscales scored 3.25±1.06. Female residents scored significantly higher than their male counterparts and there were no statistical significant difference between years of residency. Cronbach's alpha was 0.936. Conclusion: Most of the learning climate domains scored poorly, which necessitates a rigorous plan for reevaluation and improvement. Furthermore, D-RECT proved to be a reliable instrument and could help in evaluation and improvement of postgraduate training programs.
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.