ArticleBMC medical education2024
Maturity model for assessing the medical humanities: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecoming a first-level discipline in China means access to more educational resources. The development of medical humanities in China has been going on for more than 40 years, and some medical schools have set up master's and doctoral programs in medical humanities. The demand for medical humanities-related knowledge in China is also growing after COVID-19. However, medical humanities is only a second-level discipline and receives limited resources to meet the needs of society. This study aims to establish a system of indicators that can assess whether the medical humanities has a first-level discipline and provide a basis for its upgrading to a first-level.
methodsA Delphi technique was used, with the panel of expert expressing their views in a series of two questionnaires. A coefficient of variation of less than 0.2 indicates expert agreement.
resultA total of 25 experts participated in this Delphi study. Consensus was reached on 11 first-grade indices and 48 s-grade indices. The authoritative coefficient(Cr) of the experts was 0.804, which indicates that the experts have a high level of reliability.
conclusionThis study provides a reliable foundation for the evaluation of medical humanities maturity.
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.