Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30328138›Full record

ReviewMedical education2019

Keeping mum in clinical supervision: private thoughts and public judgements.

Catherine E Scarff, Margaret Bearman, Neville Chiavaroli, Steve Trumble

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical education, 2019. 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. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Catherine E ScarffDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7717-950X
Margaret BearmanCentre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6862-9871
Neville ChiavaroliDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1488-9747
Steve TrumbleDepartment of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8097-5785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe seemingly obvious claim that people prefer to keep mum about undesirable messages - termed 'the MUM effect' - was initially reported in the psychology literature in the 1970s. More recently, it has been discussed in contexts including performance appraisals and the reporting of unsuccessful projects in workplace settings, but only sparsely in educational ones. We wished to review the published literature on the MUM effect in order to understand the implications for clinical assessment.

methodsWe performed a narrative literature review on the MUM effect and clustered findings together into three themes: those that describe what MUM behaviours look like, those that explore potential reasons for the MUM effect and those that consider factors that can influence MUM behaviours.

resultsThis paper summarises the extensive literature on the MUM effect, including its manifestations and modifiers and discusses how the effect may be used to consider issues faced by many clinical supervisors faced with delivering 'negative' assessment messages to trainees. DISCUSSION: We suggest, that as a pervasive phenomenon, the MUM effect can both help to explain the difficulties that some assessors face when delivering undesirable messages (including feedback or ratings) and offer new insights in how to deal with such issues.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackJudgmentClinical CompetenceHumansTruth Disclosure

Identifiers

PMID30328138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.