Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28652951›Full record

ReviewCureus2017

Current Practices in Assessing Professionalism in United States and Canadian Allopathic Medical Students and Residents.

Nandini Nittur, Jonathan Kibble

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dismissed Psychiatry Residents Who Appeal: Exploring Unprofessional Behavior.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  6. Hidden Curriculum in Medical Residency Programs: A Scoping Review.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding Unprofessionalism in Residents.Journal of graduate medical education · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors.

Nandini NitturMedical Education, University of Central Florida College of Medicine.
Jonathan KibbleMedical Education, University of Central Florida College of Medicine.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professionalism is a critically important competency that must be evaluated in medical trainees but is a complex construct that is hard to assess. A systematic review was undertaken to give insight into the current best practices for assessment of professionalism in medical trainees and to identify new research priorities in the field. A search was conducted on PubMed for behavioral assessments of medical students and residents among the United States and Canadian allopathic schools in the last 15 years. An initial search yielded 594 results, 28 of which met our inclusion criteria. Our analysis indicated that there are robust generic definitions of the major attributes of medical professionalism. The most commonly used assessment tools are survey instruments that use Likert scales tied to attributes of professionalism. While significant progress has been made in this field in recent years, several opportunities for system-wide improvement were identified that require further research. These include a paucity of information about assessment reliability, the need for rater training, a need to better define competency in professionalism according to learner level (preclinical, clerkship, resident etc.) and ways to remediate lapses in professionalism. Student acceptance of assessment of professionalism may be increased if assessment tools are shifted to better incorporate feedback. Tackling the impact of the hidden curriculum in which students may observe lapses in professionalism by faculty and other health care providers is another priority for further study.

Indexed as

assessmenthidden curriculumprofessionalism

Identifiers

PMID28652951
PMCPMC5481180

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.