ArticleBMC medical education2020
Sustained effects of faculty leadership development modules for clinical instructors of core competences education in Taiwan: a four-year explanatory case study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies (CC) in general medicine-based primary care are essential for junior medical trainees. In this country, a regular faculty development (FD) program aimed at training faculty in instructing (teaching and assessing) these CC had operated. However, leadership was not emphasized. In a new intervention module, the roles and associated responsibilities of clinical instructors to conduct, design, and lead CC-based education were emphasis.
aimsThis follow-up explanatory case study compares the effectiveness of intervention module with that of the previous regular module.
methodsThe regular group (n = 28) comprised clinical instructors who participated in the FD module during the 2013-2014 year while the intervention group (n = 28) was composed of 2015-2016 participants. Prior to the formal (hands-on) training, participants in the intervention group were asked to study the online materials of the regular module. These participants then received a 30-h hands-on training in conducting, designing, and leading skills. Finally, they prepared a 10-h reflective end-of-module presentation of their real-world practices.
resultsFollowing the training, a higher degree improvement in participants self-reported familiarity with CC education, self-confidence in their ability to deliver CC education and sustained involve CC education were noted among the intervention FD group, compared with the regular FD group. In the intervention group, senior academicians (associate and full professor) are more substantially involved in designing and leading CC-based courses than junior academicians (lecturers and assistant professors). Among non-teaching award winners of in the intervention FD group, the follow-up degree of sustained involvement in delivering, designing and leading CC-based courses was significantly higher than that of the regular group.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated that leadership training in the intervention FD modules substantially motivated clinical instructors to become leaders in CC education.
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.