Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406582›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

A Scoping Review of Professional Identity Formation in Undergraduate Medical Education.

Shiva Sarraf-Yazdi, Yao Neng Teo, Ashley Ern Hui How, Yao Hao Teo, Sherill Goh, Cheryl Shumin Kow, Wei Yi Lam, Ruth Si Man Wong, Haziratul Zakirah Binte Ghazali, Sarah-Kei Lauw and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 149 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
29.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

149 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Shiva Sarraf-YazdiDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Yao Neng TeoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ashley Ern Hui HowDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yao Hao TeoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sherill GohYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Cheryl Shumin KowYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Wei Yi LamYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ruth Si Man WongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Haziratul Zakirah Binte GhazaliDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sarah-Kei LauwYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Javier Rui Ming TanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ryan Bing Qian LeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yun Ting OngYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Natalie Pei Xin ChanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Clarissa Wei Shuen CheongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nur Haidah Ahmad KamalYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Alexia Sze Inn LeeDivision of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Lorraine Hui En TanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Annelissa Mien Chew ChinMedical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, Singapore, Singapore.
Min ChiamDivision of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Lalit Kumar Radha KrishnaDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. lalit.radha-krishna@liverpool.ac.uk.
National Cancer Centre Singapore · SGNational University of Singapore · SGDuke-NUS Medical School · SGNanyang Technological University · SGNational Library Board · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional identity formation (PIF) in medical students is a multifactorial phenomenon, shaped by ways that clinical and non-clinical experiences, expectations and environmental factors merge with individual values, beliefs and obligations. The relationship between students' evolving professional identity and self-identity or personhood remains ill-defined, making it challenging for medical schools to support PIF systematically and strategically. Primarily, to capture prevailing literature on PIF in medical school education, and secondarily, to ascertain how PIF influences on medical students may be viewed through the lens of the ring theory of personhood (RToP) and to identify ways that medical schools support PIF.

methodsA systematic scoping review was conducted using the systematic evidence-based approach. Articles published between 1 January 2000 and 1 July 2020 related to PIF in medical students were searched using PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Scopus. Articles of all study designs (quantitative and qualitative), published or translated into English, were included. Concurrent thematic and directed content analyses were used to evaluate the data.

resultsA total of 10443 abstracts were identified, 272 full-text articles evaluated, and 76 articles included. Thematic and directed content analyses revealed similar themes and categories as follows: characteristics of PIF in relation to professionalism, role of socialization in PIF, PIF enablers and barriers, and medical school approaches to supporting PIF. DISCUSSION: PIF involves iterative construction, deconstruction and inculcation of professional beliefs, values and behaviours into a pre-existent identity. Through the lens of RToP, factors were elucidated that promote or hinder students' identity development on individual, relational or societal levels. If inadequately or inappropriately supported, enabling factors become barriers to PIF. Medical schools employ an all-encompassing approach to support PIF, illuminating the need for distinct and deliberate longitudinal monitoring and mentoring to foster students' balanced integration of personal and professional identities over time.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalHumansProfessionalismSchools, MedicalSocial IdentificationpersonhoodPIFprofessional identityprofessional identity formationring theory of personhood

Identifiers

PMID34406582
PMCPMC8606368
OpenAlexW3194831356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.