ReviewBMC medical education2023
Process evaluation of paediatric fellowship training programs at a University Hospital in Pakistan.
Review in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFellowship programs offer training in a subspecialty focusing on distinct and advanced clinical/academic skills. This advanced postgraduate training allows physicians, who desire a more specialized practice, to further develop clinical, academic, research, and leadership/administrative skills. The Aga Khan University (AKU) is one of the few institutes offering paediatric sub-specialty training in Pakistan. We aimed to evaluate the current Paediatric fellowship programs at AKU.
methodsProcess evaluation of six paediatric fellowship programs (cardiology, neurology, endocrinology, critical care medicine, neonatology, and infectious disease) was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021 by senior clinicians and medical educationists. Evidence was collected through document review (using existing postgraduate medical education program information form), observation of teaching and learning support, and focused group discussions/interviews with program faculty and fellows were conducted. A review of the evaluation report was done as part of this study. This study received an exemption from the ethical review committee. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (22.0) while the reports of discussion with fellows and friends underwent content analysis.
resultsAll fellowship programs met the criteria for having a robust competency-based fellowship curriculum as per the institutional and national guidelines. Formative assessment in the form of continuous evaluation was found to be integrated into all the fellowship programs, however, most of the programs were found to lack a summative assessment plan. Fellows in training and program faculty were satisfied with the opportunities for mentorship, teaching, and learning. Thematic analysis of the discussion reports with faculty and fellows revealed three key themes including, program aspects translating into strengthening the training, gaps in the training program in delivering the expectations, and making ways to reach par excellence.
conclusionsThe process evaluation of paediatric fellowship programs provided an opportunity to holistically review the current strengths and quality of the training in individual programs along with the unmet needs of the trainees. This will help the program stakeholders to prioritize, align and allocate the resources to further enhance the quality of training and outcome of individual fellowship programs to ensure wider impacts at a regional, national, and international health system level.
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.