ArticleBMJ open2022
Culture and understanding the role of feedback for health professions students: realist synthesis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Feedback as a Relational and Organisational Process: A Qualitative Study of Students' Experiences in Operating Room Environment.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical education has moved to a 'competency-based' model with an emphasis on workplace-based learning and assessment which, in turn, depends on feedback to be effective. Further, the understanding of feedback has changed from information about a performance directed to the learner performing the task, to a dialogue, which enables the learner to act and develop.In health professional education, feedback is a complex interaction between trainee, supervisor and the healthcare system. Most published research on feedback in health professional education originates in Europe and North America. Our interest is on the impact of METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An initial search was performed to help define the scope of the review question and develop our initial programme theory. The formal electronic search was carried out in February 2020 and included: CINAHL, ERIC, Medline and PsycInfo, and repeated in October 2020. Retrieved articles were imported into Covidence for screening and data extraction, after which components of the Context-Mechanisms-Outcomes configurations will be sought to refine the initial programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a literature review, ethics approval is not required.The findings will be documented in line with the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) publications standards for Realist syntheses, and we plan to disseminate the findings by means of a peer-reviewed journal article and conference presentation(s).
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.