SynthesisBMC medical education2019
Exploring taught masters education for healthcare practitioners: a systematic review of literature.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- An observation of the peer-assisted learning (PAL) method in the clinical teaching of vertigo/dizziness-related diseases for standardized residency training (SRT) students in China: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study.BMC medical education · 2021Trial
- A call to action for the harmonization of education and training for clinical embryologists: a framing paper.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Exploring Agency, Autonomy and Authority Among Lead Tissue Viability Nurses: A Qualitative Study.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Factors influencing intention to pursue postgraduate studies in nutrition and dietetics among Thai dietitians: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Creativity and job satisfaction among nurses in iran: a descriptive-correlational study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Facilitators of and obstacles to practitioners' adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use: a scoping review.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- Evaluating the perceived impact and legacy of master's degree level research in the allied health professions: a UK-wide cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- "Growing through relationship" - the Engagement of the Health Professional Students in the Internship Experience: a Grounded Theory Research.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Development of clinical competence - a longitudinal survey of nurse practitioner students.BMC nursing · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMasters-level education is a key pathway of professional development for healthcare practitioners. Whilst there is evidence that Masters-level education leads to career enhancement, it is unclear how the programme pedagogy contributes to this. The objective was to: (1) examine the programme pedagogies and context that supports learning, and (2) synthesise the outputs, outcomes and impact of Masters-level healthcare programmes.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and is reported in line with PRISMA. Using pre-defined key terms and eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently searched Medline, ERIC, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to 14th November 2016, reference lists of retrieved articles and selected websites. Data were extracted independently. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. A Weight of Evidence Framework enabled evaluation of the overall quality of evidence. Data were synthesised using thematic qualitative analysis.
resultsThirty-five studies were included. All studies were retrospective, evaluated programmes in nursing (n = 19), physiotherapy (n = 6), general and family medicine (n = 4), public health (n = 3), dentistry (n = 1), interdisciplinary (n = 1), and occupational therapy (n = 1). Most studies were rated low in methodological quality, with an overall low to moderate weight of evidence for programmes' outcomes and impact. Pedagogies that promote social participation and knowledge co-construction, reflection, learner-centred approach, relevance and authenticity influenced outcomes and impact. CONCLUSION(S): Notwithstanding the low to moderate weight of evidence, the review identified multiple positive outcomes of Master-level education for healthcare practitioners. Whilst the pedagogies that contributed to such positive outcomes were examined in some studies, there is a need to further explore links between programme pedagogy, outputs, outcomes and impact. A cultural approach to evaluation may capture how M-level education drives changes.
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.