ArticleCureus2022
What Faculty Want: Academic and Community Emergency Physicians' Perceptions of Learner Feedback.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding Sarcopenia in maintenance hemodialysis patients in Northeastern China.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Faculty development is often deployed by central medical schools, with little guidance from end-users. How and what faculty members can use to improve their performance requires a deeper understanding from this user group. This study aims to explore how faculty perceive learners' feedback about their performance as educators. Methods This study is an explanatory mixed-method research, wherein community- and academic-based emergency medicine faculty members from nine regional hospitals were surveyed about their perceptions of various outcome measures for faculty development. Selected participants were invited to follow-up interviews. We analyzed the physicians' perceptions toward teaching and performance feedback data based on faculty's gender, role as academic or community physician, and work experience. Results The quantitative phase has 104 participants, and 15 of these were followed up with interviews. The gender of faculty does not have statistical or practical differences regarding their perceptions of learner feedback. Type of practice contains meaningful insights about the perception of learner feedback although it does not have a statistical difference. Moreover, an inverse trend exists between the physicians' years of experience and their perceived value of learner feedback. Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference in the faculty's experience level and their perceived value for the metric "quantity of feedback commentary compared to their peer group" (H(4) = 12.21, p = 0.02), specifically between junior and senior faculty (p = 0.007). Some faculty stated that experienced faculty may perceive they have a very well-established style. Conclusions Diversifying feedback sources and delivery may be useful for different groups of faculty members. Junior physicians are more interested in gaining feedback about the quantity of their written feedback to students compared to more senior physicians. Learner feedback holds promise to trigger continuous improvement in community sites for those who fall behind compared to the academic sites.
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.