ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2019
The International Literature on Teaching Faculty Development in English-Language Journals: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Core Topics.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2019. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking barriers: widening participation for cross-cultural faculty development in Japan.International journal of medical education · 2022Article
- Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.Medical education · 2021Article
- Faculty Development in Basic Science Disciplines for Clinical Teachers: Results of a Cross-Cultural Workshop in the Dominican Republic.Medical science educator · 2020Article
- The Value of International Research and Learning in Graduate Medical Education.Journal of graduate medical education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith increasing physician mobility, there is interest in how medical schools and postgraduate medical education institutions across the world develop and maintain the competence of medical teachers. Published reviews of faculty development (FD) have predominantly included studies from the United States and Canada.
objectiveWe synthesized the international FD literature (beyond the US and Canada), focusing on FD type, intended audience, study format, effectiveness, differences among countries, and potential unique features.
methodsWe identified English-language publications that addressed FD for medical faculty for teaching and related activities, excluding US and Canadian publications.
resultsA search of 4 databases identified 149 publications, including 83 intervention studies. There was significant growth in international FD publications for the most recent decade, and a sizable number of studies were from developing economies and/or resulted from international collaborations. Focal areas echo those in earlier published reviews, suggesting the international FD literature addresses similar faculty needs and organizational concerns.
conclusionsThe growth in publications in recent years and a higher proportion of reporting on participant reactions, coupled with less frequent reporting of results, transfer to practice, and impact on learners and the organization, suggest this is an evolving field. To enhance international FD, educators and researchers should focus on addressing common needs expressed by faculty, including curriculum design and evaluation, small group teaching, assessing professionalism and providing feedback. Future research should focus on approaches for developing comprehensive institutional FD programs that include communities of learning and practice and evaluating their impact.
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.