ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2024
Challenges and potential improvements in the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) derived through meta-evaluation: a cross-sectional study
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond intentions: a critical narrative review of accreditation's planned and emergent impact on medical schools.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Review
- The new placement of 2,000 entrants at Korean medical schools in 2025: is the government's policy evidence-based?Ewha medical journal · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea’s medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants.
resultsSite visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members.
conclusionThis study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.
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.