SynthesisHuman resources for health2023
Evidence for recency of practice standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to manage occluded central venous access devices: An umbrella review.The journal of vascular access · 2025Pooled it
- Transitioning between clinical and academic practice from the perspectives of clinical academic trainees, academic training programme directors and academic supervisors: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth practitioner regulators throughout the world use registration standards to define the requirements health practitioners need to meet for registration. These standards commonly include recency of practice (ROP) standards designed to ensure that registrants have sufficient recent practice in the scope in which they intend to work to practise safely. As the ROP registration standards for most National Boards are currently under review, it is timely that an appraisal of current evidence be carried out.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL), search engines, and a review of grey literature published between 2015 and April 2022. Publications included in the review were assessed against the relevant CASP checklist for quantitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies.
resultsThe search yielded 65 abstracts of which 12 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Factors that appear to influence skills retention include the length of time away from practice, level of previous professional experience and age, as well as the complexity of the intervention. The review was unable to find a clear consensus on the period of elapsed time after which a competency assessment should be completed.
conclusionsFactors that need to be taken into consideration in developing ROP standards include length of time away from practice, previous experience, age and the complexity of the intervention, however, there is a need for further research in this area.
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.