Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37008420›Full record

ReviewMedical science educator2023

Scaffolding in Health Sciences Education Programmes: An Integrative Review.

Beloved Masava, Champion N Nyoni, Yvonne Botma

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical science educator, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Learning shared decision making in undergraduate medical education: a realist review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Beloved MasavaSchool of Nursing, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-8931-8888
Champion N NyoniSchool of Nursing, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Yvonne BotmaSchool of Nursing, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The complexity of health sciences programmes justifies scaffolding to support students in becoming competent health professionals. This article reports on an integrative review that aimed to describe the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Twenty-nine sources, inclusive of theoretical and empirical studies, were reviewed. The sequencing of educational activities, the application of scaffolding tools or resources, frameworks for applying scaffolding, modelling, and fading represented the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Awareness of the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes could contribute to enhancing competence development among students when applied across all learning platforms.

Indexed as

Competence developmentFadingHealth sciences programmeIntegrative reviewModellingScaffoldingStudent-centred learning

Identifiers

PMID37008420
PMCPMC10060462

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.