Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34426462›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Variable trajectory: a systematic review, analytic synthesis and construct domain consolidation of international measures of competence in doctors and medical students.

Kirsty L Hodgson, Daniel J Lamport, Allán Laville

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Kirsty L HodgsonSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9680-0445
Daniel J LamportSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4592-0439
Allán LavilleSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK a.laville@reading.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9678-9269

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompetence is assessed throughout a doctor's career. Failure to identify and manage impaired competence can have critical consequences. Consistent conceptualisation and accurate measurement of this construct is imperative. Therefore, the objective of this review was to identify and evaluate measures used to assess competence in doctors and medical students.

methodsA systematic search of the published literature was undertaken between December 2019 and February 2020 for articles reporting on the measurement of competence in doctors and/or medical students. Searches were conducted in the PsychSOURCE, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science electronic databases. Citation screening and forward citation tracking of included studies were carried out to identify any further relevant papers for inclusion. One thousand one hundred and thirty-six potentially relevant articles were screened. An analytic synthesis approach was implemented to the identification, organisation and interpretation of homogenous study and measure characteristics.

resultsTwelve competence domains were identified from the 153 identified measures. Knowledge and procedural competence domains were the dominant focus of publications reporting current medical practice, but less so in research-based studies which more frequently assessed interpersonal, psychological, physiological and ethical competencies. In the 105 included articles, the reporting of measurement instrument quality was varied, with comprehensive reporting only present in 53.6% of measures; validation for some of the measures was particularly limited. DISCUSSION: While this review included a considerable number of publications reporting the measurement of competence in doctors and medical students, the heterogeneity of the measures and variation of findings limit the ability to evaluate their validity and generalisability. However, this review presents a resource for researchers and medical educators which may inform operational practice and future research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020162156.

Indexed as

PhysiciansStudents, MedicalHumanseducation & training (see medical education & training)human resource managementmedical education & trainingmedical ethicsquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34426462
PMCPMC8383887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.