Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29226236›Full record

ArticleGMS journal for medical education2017

Self-Assessment of competence during post-graduate training in general medicine: A preliminary study to develop a portfolio for further education.

Bert Huenges, Barbara Woestmann, Susanne Ruff-Dietrich, Herbert Rusche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Bert HuengesRuhr-University Bochum, Department of General Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Barbara WoestmannRuhr-University Bochum, Department of General Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Susanne Ruff-DietrichRuhr-University Bochum, JADE NRW, Bochum, Germany.
Herbert RuscheRuhr-University Bochum, Department of General Medicine, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Awareness of one's own strengths and weaknesses is a key qualification for the specialist physician. We examined how physicians undergoing specialist training in general medicine rate themselves in different areas. For this purpose, 139 participants receiving post-graduate training in general practice offered by the Medical Association of Westfalen-Lippe assessed themselves regarding their subjective confidence in 20 core competencies and 47 situations involving patient counseling in general practice. Their self-assessments were recorded on a five-point Likert scale. The study questions addressed acceptance and practicability of self-assessment, mean values, reliability, stratification and plausibility of the results in group comparison. On average participants rated their subjective confidence with 3.4 out of 5 points. The results are self-consistent (Cronbach's alpha >0.8), although there are considerable differences among competencies and among participants. The latter can be explained partly by biographical data, which supports the plausibility of the data. Participants stated that regularly gathering data on subjective learning needs and the discussion of these needs with mentors and trainers contributes to improving their specialist training. Elements for self-assessment are suitable for integration into a postgraduate training portfolio. These should be supplemented by formative assessment procedures.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceSelf-AssessmentGeneral PracticeHumansReproducibility of ResultsSchools, Medicalgeneral medicineportfolioself-assessmentspecialist training

Identifiers

PMID29226236
PMCPMC5704620

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.