ReviewBMJ open2021
Evaluation of an early career clinical academic training programme using the CIPP model.
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of an ideological and political education evaluation indicator system for Basic Nursing Courses from the perspective of the CIPP model.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a medical school's mentorship program using CIPP model: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Traditional Persian Medicine curriculum and educational environment at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences: A CIPP model report.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Evaluation of FamMed essentials: a blended-learning program for capacity building of general practitioners in Pakistan.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- To the Editor: Boundary-Crossing Communities of Practice for Aspiring Clinician-Investigators.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study describes the successful implementation and outputs of a combined clinical academic training programme for doctors in their first postgraduate year in Ireland, the Academic Internship Track (AIT).
designThe AIT was evaluated using the Context, Input, Process and Product model. Literature reviews, meetings with key stakeholders, reviews of similar established programmes overseas, a survey of undergraduate medical students, exit survey, scientific outputs and career trajectory monitoring were all implemented in the programme evaluation.
settingThe AIT represents collaboration amongst all six intern training networks in Ireland.
resultsKey stakeholders indicated support and significant interest in establishing the AIT. The input evaluation informed programme design which incorporates protected time to carry out a research project, a named supervisor, a bursary and access to dedicated study days. Since the programme's launch in 2017, there has been 100% uptake of posts and 0% attrition. Exiting participants indicate high levels of satisfaction with the programme; 92% reported having benefited from participation. Over 90% intend remaining in Ireland in both the immediate and longer terms. Fifty-seven per cent of participants in the first 3 years of the programme had succeeded in publishing a research article or review paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionsNow in its fourth year, AIT remains a highly sought-after programme and is perceived to be beneficial to one's career. Participants in the programme have contributed significantly to their field of interest despite being in the earliest career stages. The programme has the potential to help retain medical talent in Ireland.
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.