Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36512576›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Developing evidence-based resources for evaluating postgraduate trainees in the biomedical sciences.

Jacqueline E McLaughlin, Rebekah L Layton, Paul B Watkins, Robert A Nicholas, Kim L R Brouwer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Jacqueline E McLaughlinDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, Center for Innovative Pharmacy Education and Research, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9161-8441
Rebekah L LaytonOffice of Graduate Education, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7113-1348
Paul B WatkinsDivision of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Robert A NicholasOffice of Graduate Education, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Kim L R BrouwerDivision of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

UNC-Duke Collaborative Clinical Pharmacology Postdoctoral Training Program-Evaluation SupplementT32GM086330 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KIM L.R. BROUWER, Daniel Gonzalez · 2011 to 2026
$8.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM086330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postgraduate trainees elevate the academic strength of institutions by conducting research, promoting innovation, securing grant funding, training undergraduate students, and building alliances. Rigorous and systematic program evaluation can help ensure that postgraduate training programs are achieving the program's intended outcomes. The purpose of this project was to develop evidence-based evaluation tools that could be shared across federally funded biomedical training programs to enhance program evaluation capacity. This manuscript describes the evidence-based process used to determine program evaluation needs of these programs at a research-intensive university. Using a multi-phased sequential exploratory mixed methods approach, data were collected from trainees, employers, leaders, and program directors. Data analyses included document analysis of program plans, inductive coding of focus groups and interviews, and descriptive analysis of surveys. Two overarching categories-Trainee Skills and Program Characteristics-were identified including six themes each. Program directors prioritized communication, social and behavioral skills, and collaboration as the trainee skills that they needed the most help evaluating. Furthermore, program directors prioritized the following program characteristics as those that they needed the most help evaluating: training environment, trainee outcomes, and opportunities offered. Surveys, interview scripts, and related resources for the categories and themes were developed and curated on a publicly available website for program directors to use in their program evaluations.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchResearch PersonnelEducation, GraduateHumansProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationUniversities

Identifiers

PMID36512576
PMCPMC9746972

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.