Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31428292›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2019

The Positive Effects of Accreditation on Graduate Medical Education Programs in Singapore.

Kathleen D Holt, Rebecca S Miller, Lauren M Byrne, Susan H Day

Abstract readNews
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Kathleen D Holt
Rebecca S Miller
Lauren M Byrne
Susan H Day

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is worldwide interest in assessing the impact of accreditation systems to quantify their benefits to medical education and, through this, health care at the local and global levels.

objectiveWe analyzed ACGME-I Resident Survey data from Singapore for 2011-2018 to assess the impact of accreditation on residents' evaluations of their programs.

methodsWe focused on 7 questions from the annual Resident Survey, which would be affected by accreditation compliance, along with a single global rating of respondents' overall perception of their program. We assessed for differences among specialty groupings (medical, surgical, and hospital-based) and Singapore's 3 health care systems. Repeated measures analysis of variance procedures was used to assess trends across time for the combined 8 items and each individual item.

resultsAnalysis of the combined items showed significant improvement over the 7 years Singaporean programs had accreditation. There were no effects for specialty type or sponsoring institution. Analyses of individual questions showed 6 of 8 were significant for improvement. For the individual question related to duty hour compliance, there was a significant interaction between time and specialty, suggesting medical specialties showed greater improvement across time compared to surgical and hospital-based specialties.

conclusionsImplementation of accreditation in Singapore provided educational and clinical learning environment infrastructure not present prior to 2010, with the benefits of this reflected in residents' perceptions of their learning environment. Future assessments of the effects of accreditation might add stakeholder interviews to more fully describe its value and impact.

Indexed as

AccreditationInternship and ResidencyLearningWork Schedule ToleranceEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansSingaporeSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkload

Identifiers

PMID31428292
PMCPMC6697308

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.