Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35761477›Full record

ReviewMedical education2023

Re-opening Pandora's box: Who owns professionalism and is it time for a 21st century definition?

Viktoria C T Goddard, Susannah Brockbank

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. How Do Academic Medicine Pathways Differ for Underrepresented Trainees and Physicians? A Critical Scoping Review.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Viktoria C T GoddardSchool of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1967-6126
Susannah BrockbankSchool of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6576-7892

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of professionalism is dominant within health care education and the lives of practising clinicians globally, and yet there is no single agreed definition nor framework applied universally across the health care professions. This article questions how much attention is paid to where definitions of the concept of professionalism came from and whether the accepted norms within the dominant discourses are still truly applicable to a 21st century workforce.

methodTaking a critical look at the existing body of literature on professionalism using a locus of medical education, this article reviews who the dominant voices have been in the creation of current understandings of professionalism. Using a pragmatic and targeted approach, regulatory body definitions of professionalism from across the world are compared to demonstrate the complexities of finding a universally accepted definition of the concept.

resultsThe article suggests that the extant definitions are grounded but also stuck in a background of Western, White, heteronormative view of society and the professions of the past and argues that we need to better understand the expectations of professionalism from the perspectives of those who now work in health care and health care education, as well as reviewing the views of the "public" within this debate.

conclusionsBy reopening the "Pandora's box" of professionalism, this article argues that we can improve the quality of definitions-and thus application-of professionalism for health care professionals and patients.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalHealth EducationHumans

Identifiers

PMID35761477
PMCPMC10083973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.