ReviewBMC medical education2022
Validation of a questionnaire exploring patient attitudes towards bedside teaching.
Review in BMC medical education, 2022. 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.
- Patient perspectives on practice guidance in nursing education: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Obstetrics and gynecology patients' perceptions about bedside teaching at a Saudi teaching hospital.Journal of family & community medicineArticle
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
backgroundBedside teaching (BST) facilitates medical education and has reduced in practice, often due to patient-related concerns. This study aimed to validate a questionnaire exploring patients attitudes towards BST.
methodsInternational guidelines for questionnaire development were followed. Seven steps were included: literature review, patient interviews, development of clear and understandable items, expert validation, cognitive interviewing and pilot testing. Statistical analyses included exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency, investigation of demographic influences and discriminant validity across subscales.
resultsFollowing the literature review, 32 interviews were conducted. Potential items were developed, reviewed and adapted. Experts in medical education and statistics reviewed the draft questionnaire. Fifteen patients consented to cognitive testing and 401 consenting patients completed the final version. The median age of participants was 35 years of age (range: 18 to 70 years). Participants included women attending for antenatal (40%), postnatal (32%) and gynaecology issues (28%). Just under one third (29%) had taken part in medical student teaching previously. Statistical analyses found a two-factor solution, consisting of Educate medical professionals and Conditions for participation subscales with good internal consistency; responses did not vary by age or education. Participants who had opted-in for teaching in the ward and bedside endorsed higher levels of Educate medical professionals, suggesting discriminant validity. A majority of patients (> 92%) reported that they were happy to be involved in BST. Patients believed that they should not be asked to participate in BST should they feel stressed or unwell (68.2%).
conclusionThis study shows extensive patient support for BST, independent of age or education. The desire to educate is a strong motivating factor. This strong support by patients for BST is an area that medical schools and universities can potentially develop. Future versions of this questionnaire may include virtual bedside teaching, in the context of social distancing.
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.