ArticleCanadian medical education journal2021
The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment?
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of CME Participation and Credit Compliance Among Healthcare Professionals: A Five-Year Study (2019-2023) From a Hospital in Guangdong, China.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews.Canadian medical education journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocal grants programs are important since funding for medical education research is limited. Understanding which factors predict successful outcomes is highly relevant to administrators. The purpose of this project was to identify factors that contribute to the publication of local medical education grants in a Canadian context.
methodsSurveys were distributed to previous Department of Innovation in Medical Education (DIME) and Department of Medicine (DOM) grant recipients (
resultsThe overall publication rate was 64/115 (56%). Due to missing data, 91 grants were included in the logistic regression. Variables associated with a higher rate of publication; cross departmental compared to single department OR = 2.82 (
conclusionAlthough preliminary, our data suggest that increasing research publications from local grants may be facilitated by pooling funds across departments, making research presentations mandatory, and allowing successful researchers to re-apply.
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.