Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35950304›Full record

ReviewMedical education2023

State of the science: Quality improvement of medical curricula-How should we approach it?

Susan Jamieson

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. "Teaching capital"- a sociological analysis of medical educator portfolios for promotion.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Susan JamiesonSchool of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3878-339X
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuality improvement (QI) of the medical curriculum is generally regarded as a continuous process of evaluating whether the specific curriculum meets relevant educational and professional standards, implementing new activities or other measures to address perceived deficiencies, and subsequently re-evaluating the quality of the curriculum. QI is of consequence to medical learners, educators, patients, carers, specific disciplines and specialties, regulators and funders.

methodsTo address how we should approach QI of medical curricula, a narrative review was undertaken, drawing mainly on medical/health professions education literature, identified through searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED and ERIC databases, and also on exemplar curricular frameworks and evaluation reports. Assumptions and practices in QI of medical curricula were explored critically.

resultsThe review compares alternative conceptualisations of QI; asks questions about priorities and perspectives in what we choose to evaluate; reflects on standards used to guide QI; critically discusses methods, models and theoretical approaches to the generation of evaluation data; and considers ownership of, and engagement with QI of medical curricula.

conclusionsRecommendations for curriculum teams include that discourse is necessary to achieve transparency and a shared understanding of continuous QI in a particular curricular context. Continuous QI requires data collection methods aligned to specific evaluation questions/foci; multiple methods for data collection, from different stakeholders; and appropriate evaluation models and theory to provide a framework for QI. Embracing a quality culture approach may increase the sense of ownership experienced by stakeholders. Mechanisms include creating democratic-collegiate cultures for multiple stakeholders to collaborate in QI; engaging stakeholders in QI activities and (e.g. SoTL) projects that contribute to holistic continuous QI; and proactively embedding quality in the (co-)creation of curriculum components and resources.

Indexed as

CurriculumQuality ImprovementHumans

Identifiers

PMID35950304
PMCPMC10087231
OpenAlexW4291021455

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.