Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310902›Full record

ArticleCanadian medical education journal2022

Implementation of Entrustable Professional Activities assessments in a Canadian obstetrics and gynecology residency program: a mixed methods study.

Valerie Mueller, Michelle Morais, Mark Lee, Jonathan Sherbino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Medical education in obstetrics and gynecology: A global update from 2025.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. The Ladder of Inference re-visited: "Don't jump to confusions!"Canadian medical education journal · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Valerie MuellerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle MoraisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Mark LeeMcMaster for Education Research, Innovation, and Theory (MERIT) Program, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Jonathan SherbinoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) across residency training programs in Canada, there has been limited research understanding how entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments are used by faculty supervisors and residents. Objective: This study examines how EPA assessments are used in an Obstetrics and Gynecology residency program and the impact of implementation on both groups. Methods: A mixed methods study design was used. Part one involved the aggregation of descriptive data of EPA assessment completion for postgraduate year 1 and 2 residents from July 2019 to May 2020. Part two involved a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews of residents and faculty. Results: There was significant uptake of EPA assessments across community and teaching hospitals with widespread contribution of assessment data from faculty. However, both residents and faculty reported that the intended design of EPA assessments as low-stakes assessments to provide formative feedback is not how EPA assessments are experienced. Residents and faculty noted the increased level of administrative burden and related perceived stress amongst the resident group. Conclusions: The implementation of EPA assessments is feasible across a variety of sites. However, previous measurement challenges remain. Neither residents nor faculty perceive the value of EPAs to improve feedback, despite their intended nature.

Identifiers

PMID36310902
PMCPMC9588190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.