ArticleHuman resources for health2023
Consistency and quality in written accreditation protocols for pediatrician training programs: a mixed-methods analysis of a global sample, and directions for improvement.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptions of academic leaders in low- and middle-income countries about the role of WFME in enhancing the quality of medical education.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) defines accreditation as 'certification of the suitability of medical education programs, and of…competence…in the delivery of medical education.' Accreditation bodies function at national, regional and global levels. In 2015, WFME published quality standards for accreditation of postgraduate medical education (PGME). We compared accreditation of pediatric PGME programs to these standards to understand variability in accreditation and areas for improvement.
methodsWe examined 19 accreditation protocols representing all country income levels and world regions. For each, two raters assessed 36 WFME-defined accreditation sub-areas as present, partially present, or absent. When rating "partially present" or "absent", raters noted the rationale for the rating. Using an inductive approach, authors qualitatively analyzed notes, generating themes in reasons for divergence from the benchmark.
resultsA median of 56% (IQR 43-77%) of WFME sub-areas were present in individual protocols; 22% (IQR 15-39%) were partially present; and 8.3% (IQR 5.5-21%) were absent. Inter-rater agreement was 74% (SD 11%). Sub-areas least addressed included number of trainees, educational expertise, and performance of qualified doctors. Qualitative themes of divergence included (1) variation in protocols related to heterogeneity in program structure; (2) limited engagement with stakeholders, especially regarding educational outcomes and community/health system needs; (3) a trainee-centered approach, including equity considerations, was not universal; and (4) less emphasis on quality of education, particularly faculty development in teaching.
conclusionsHeterogeneity in accreditation can be appropriate, considering cultural or regulatory context. However, we identified broadly applicable areas for improvement: ensuring equitable access to training, taking a trainee-centered approach, emphasizing quality of teaching, and ensuring diverse stakeholder feedback.
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.