Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38641609›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

The feedback dilemma in medical education: insights from medical residents' perspectives.

Sara Shafian, Mehran Ilaghi, Yasamin Shahsavani, Maryam Okhovati, Adel Soltanizadeh, Sarah Aflatoonian, Ali Karamoozian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sara ShafianDepartment of Medical Education, Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Mehran IlaghiDepartment of Medical Education, Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. mehranila@gmail.com.
Yasamin ShahsavaniOral and Dental Diseases Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Maryam OkhovatiMedical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Future Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Adel SoltanizadehDepartment of Medical Education, Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Sarah AflatoonianDepartment of Medical Education, Education Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Ali KaramoozianDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Kerman University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback is a critical component of the learning process in a clinical setting. This study aims to explore medical residents' perspectives on feedback delivery and identify potential barriers to feedback-seeking in clinical training.

methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 180 medical residents across seventeen specialties. We employed the validated Residency Education Feedback Level Evaluation in Clinical Training (REFLECT) tool to assess residents' perspectives on their attitude toward feedback, quality of feedback, perceived importance, and reaction to feedback. Additionally, we explored barriers to feedback-seeking behavior among medical residents.

resultsThe majority of medical residents held positive attitudes toward feedback. They agreed that feedback improves their clinical performance (77.7%), professional behavior (67.2%), and academic motivation (56.7%), while also influencing them to become a better specialist in their future career (72.8%). However, the study revealed critical deficiencies in the feedback process. Only 25.6% of residents reported receiving regular feedback and less than half reported that feedback was consistently delivered at suitable times and locations, was sufficiently clear or included actionable plans for improvement. A minority (32.2%) agreed that faculty had sufficient skills to deliver feedback effectively. Moreover, peer-to-peer feedback appeared to be a primary source of feedback among residents. Negative feedback, though necessary, often triggered feelings of stress, embarrassment, or humiliation. Notably, there were no significant differences in feedback perceptions among different specialties. The absence of a feedback-seeking culture emerged as a central barrier to feedback-seeking behavior in the clinical setting.

conclusionsEstablishing shared expectations and promoting a culture of feedback-seeking could bridge the gap between residents' perceptions and faculty feedback delivery. Furthermore, recognizing the role of senior and peer residents as valuable feedback sources can contribute to more effective feedback processes in clinical training, ultimately benefiting resident development and patient care.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesFeedbackHumansMotivationPeer GroupClinical trainingFeedbackMedical educationMedical residents

Identifiers

PMID38641609
PMCPMC11031893
OpenAlexW4394942517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.