ArticleBMC medical education2024
Trainee advocacy for medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: a sequential mixed methods analysis.
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.
- Mixed-methods research in medical education: Lessons from a meta-study of methodological practice.Medical education · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.
methodsIn 2022-23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results.
resultsA total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: "Utilizing Trainee Feedback" related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); "Inclusion" related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and "Obstacles", "Catalysts", and "Sustainability" related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5).
conclusionsTrainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy.
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.