ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
Training healthcare professionals to be ready for practice in an era of social distancing: a realist evaluation.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgramme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not).
methodsWe conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020-21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of 'context-mechanism-outcome' (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration-explanation-mental rehearsal-attempt with feedback. Where it didn't work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.
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.