ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Lessons learned spanning 17 years of experience with three consecutive nationwide competency based medical education training plans.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residents' Experiences with Personalized Learning in Postgraduate Training; Going Beyond Competency Based Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Key tips to shift student perspectives through transformative learning in medical education.BMC medical education · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Curricula for postgraduate medical education have transformed since the introduction of competency based medical education (CBME). Postgraduate training plans offer broader training with different competencies and an outcome-based approach, in addition to the medical technical aspects of training. However, CBME also has its challenges. Over the past years, critical views have been shared on the potential drawbacks of CBME, such as assessment burden and conflicts with practicality in the workplace. Recent studies identified a need for a better understanding of how the evolving concept of CBME has been translated to curriculum design and implemented in the practice of postgraduate training. The aim of this study was to describe the development of CBME translations to curriculum design, based on three consecutive postgraduate training programs spanning 17 years. Method: We performed a document analysis of three consecutive Dutch gynecology and obstetrics training plans that were implemented in 2005, 2013, and 2021. We used template analysis to identify changes over time. Results: Over time, CBME-based curriculum design changed in several domains. Assessment changed from a model with a focus on summative decision to one with an emphasis on formative, low-stakes assessments aimed at supporting learning. The training plans evolved in parallel to evolving educational insights, e.g., by placing increasing emphasis on personal development. The curricula focused on a competency-based concept by introducing training modules and personalized authorization based on feedback rather than on a set duration of internships. There was increasing freedom in personalized training trajectories in the training plans, together with increasing trust towards the resident. Conclusion: The way CBME was translated into training plans has evolved in the course of 17 years of experience with CMBE-based education. The main areas of change were the structure of the training plans, which became increasingly open, the degree to which learning outcomes were mandatory or not, and the way these outcomes were assessed.
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.