ArticleBMJ open2023
Workplace-based learning about health promotion in individual patient care: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Descriptive Evaluation of Evidence-Based Rounds in Critical Care Using Mixed Data Types.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Advancing a patient-centered and holistic approach for older patients with frailty in a vascular surgical department: a quality improvement initiative.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Designing a Workplace-Based Learning Environment for Learning Health Promotion: A Design-Based Research.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo outline current knowledge regarding workplace-based learning about health promotion in individual patient care.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 2000 to August 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included articles about learning (activities) for healthcare professionals (in training), about health promotion in individual patient care and in the context of workplace-based learning. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The studies were evaluated using a charting template and were analysed thematically using a template based on Designable Elements of Learning Environments model.
resultsFrom 7159 studies, we included 31 that described evaluations of workplace-based learning about health promotion, around a variety of health promotion topics, for different health professions. In the articles, health promotion was operationalised as knowledge, skills or attitudes related to specific lifestyle factors or more broadly, with concepts such as health literacy, advocacy and social determinants of health. We assembled an overview of spatial and instrumental, social, epistemic and temporal elements of learning environments in which health promotion is learnt.
conclusionsThe studies included in our analysis varied greatly in their approach to health promotion topics and the evaluation of learning outcomes. Our findings suggest the importance of providing opportunities for health profession learners to engage in authentic practice situations and address potential challenges they may experience translating related theory into practice. Additionally, our results highlight the need for conscious and articulated integration of health promotion in curricula and assessment structures. We recommend the exploration of opportunities for health profession students, professionals and patients to learn about health promotion together. Additionally, we see potential in using participatory research methods to study future health promotion learning. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6QPTV.
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.