Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31118862›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2019

Coaching by design: exploring a new approach to faculty development in a competency-based medical education curriculum.

Christine J Orr, Ranil R Sonnadara

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Milestones Next Steps: Results of a Feedback Questionnaire.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Feedback and coaching.European journal of pediatrics · 2022
    Review
  20. 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.

Christine J OrrDiscipline of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Ranil R SonnadaraDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As curricula move from a time-based system to a competency-based medical education system, faculty development will be required. Faculty will be asked to engage in the observation, assessment and feedback of tasks in the form of educational coaching. Faculty development in coaching is necessary, as the processes and tools for coaching learners toward competence are evolving with a novel assessment system. Here, we provide a scoping review of coaching in medical education. Techniques and content that could be included in the curricular design of faculty development programming for coaching (faculty as coach) are discussed based on current educational theory. A novel model of coaching for faculty (faculty as coachee) has been developed and is described by the authors. Its use is proposed for continuing professional development.

Indexed as

coachingcoaching medical educationcompetence based medical educationfaculty coachingfaculty development

Identifiers

PMID31118862
PMCPMC6503815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.