ArticleBMC medical education2020
Assessment of medical professionalism using the Professionalism Mini Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) in a multi-ethnic society: a Delphi 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. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- When, where and how should we assess professionalism in undergraduate medical education? Practical tips from an international conference roundtable discussion.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- Adaptation of the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise instrument into Turkish: a validity and reliability study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Exploring the Critical Driving Forces and Strategy Adoption Paths of Professional Competency Development for Various Emergency Physicians Based on the Hybrid MCDM Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Self-Assessment of Medical Ethics and Professionalism: Comparison Between Preclinical and Clinical Medical Students.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Introducing the Professionalism Mini-evaluation Exercise in Undergraduate Medical Training in India: A Validity and Feasibility Study.International journal of applied & basic medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of medical professionalism and its assessment has been well documented in the literature. However, there is currently no culturally-adapted tool to assess medical professionalism in Singapore. This study sets out to find consensus on relevance of the items from the Professionalism Mini Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) for assessing medical professionalism in Singapore.
methodsA two-round Delphi survey was completed by an expert panel consisting of program directors, associate designated institutional officials, and designated institutional official (n = 15) from residency programs in Singapore. Round 1 comprised of 23 items from the P-MEX rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Definitely include, 2 = Possibly include, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Possibly exclude, 5 = Definitely exclude). In round 2, the experts received feedback from the previous round, and were asked to re-rate the items which did not achieve consensus in the previous round. The threshold for consensus in the study was defined as 70% or greater agreement among experts.
resultsCompleted questionnaires for both rounds were received from all 15 experts. In round 1, 18 items (78%) achieved consensus to be included. In round 2, 1 (4%) item achieved consensus to be included. However, none of the remaining items achieved consensus to be removed, and they exhibited stability in responses. A list of 19 items covering four domains of medical professionalism (Doctor-patient relationship skills, Reflective skills, Time management and Inter-professional relationship skills) was obtained during the two-rounds of Delphi survey.
conclusionsNineteen items in the P-MEX had garnered consensus and is suitable for assessing medical professionalism in Singapore. The findings of this study can provide guidance for faculty and institutions who want to assess medical professionalism of their medical trainees.
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.