ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2023
What Feedback Content Do Clinical Teachers Address During OSTEs?
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: How to give feedback is widely taught and assessed during Faculty Development programs. As part of such programs, clinical teachers can attend objective structured teaching sessions (OSTEs), during which they are asked to give feedback to simulated residents on different tasks. Study aimed at: -analysing the feedback content provided during these OSTEs; -evaluating the impact of the training phase, medical discipline, or observed task; -assessing the alignment between feedback content addressed by clinical teachers and content identified as essential by experts. Methods: We conducted a multimethod study. Clinical teachers (N=89) from five departments were trained to give feedback to residents in a six-month training program. Before and after training, they completed three OSTE stations which focused on tasks involving communication, interprofessional, physical exam or procedural skills. We analysed feedback content descriptively. ANOVA test was applied to evaluate feedback contents' influencing factors (ie participants' training phase, medical discipline, type of task addressed). For each OSTE, we analysed the percentage of items identified as essential by 3 experts that were addressed by clinical teachers during the feedback. Results: We analysed 317 feedback sessions and coded 5388 occurrences. Feedback content distribution was: targeted content (73%), other clinical content (20%), learning strategies (4%), and self-management/other (3%). Feedback was often negative (73%). The training phase did not influence the content addressed while the topic of the observed task and clinical teachers' specialization slightly did. Alignment between content identified by experts and addressed by clinical teachers during OSTEs was low (3-38%). Conclusion: Clinical teachers give mostly negative and targeted feedback according to the task. The poor alignment in selecting key content to be addressed is striking and should be further explored since clinical teachers may address elements of competence more according to their personal preferences than to residents' needs and context priorities.
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.