Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37254849›Full record

ArticleEvaluation & the health professions2024

Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review.

Arwa Nemir, Marion Pearson, Vanessa Kitchin, Kerry Wilbur

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Evaluation & the health professions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Arwa NemirFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marion PearsonFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Vanessa KitchinWoodward Library, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kerry WilburFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this scoping review is to outline the existing landscape of how real patients participate in the workplace-based assessment of trainees across diverse healthcare professions. In 2019-2020, the authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases for studies that included descriptions of experiences whereby patients received care from a health professional trainee and participated in workplace-based assessments of that trainee. Full-text articles published in English from 2009 to 2020 were included in the search. Of the 8770 studies screened; 77 full-text articles were included. Analysis showed that strategies for patient participation in workplace-based assessment varied widely. Aspects studied ranged from validation of an assessment tool to evaluation of the impact of an educational intervention on trainees' performance. Assessment of patient satisfaction was the most common approach to patient involvement. The majority of studies were conducted in North America and in the context of physician training. Formal patient participation in the assessment of health professional trainees appears heterogeneous across health professions. Gaps in the literature are evident; therefore, this review points to an inclusive approach to workplace-based assessment to ensure patient feedback of the trainees who care for them is represented.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationWorkplaceHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Satisfactioncompetency-oriented feedbackhealth professions educationpatient-centred educationworkplace-based assessmentworkplace-based learning

Identifiers

PMID37254849
PMCPMC11351003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.