Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38760773›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Co-designing Entrustable Professional Activities in General Practitioner's training: a participatory research study.

Vasiliki Andreou, Sanne Peters, Jan Eggermont, Birgitte Schoenmakers

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Vasiliki AndreouAcademic Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. vasiliki.andreou@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6679-0514
Sanne PetersAcademic Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6235-1752
Jan EggermontDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8497-1159
Birgitte SchoenmakersAcademic Centre for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1909-9613

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [S003219N]-SBO SCAFFOLD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn medical education, Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have been gaining momentum for the last decade. Such novel educational interventions necessitate accommodating competing needs, those of curriculum designers, and those of users in practice, in order to be successfully implemented.

methodsWe employed a participatory research design, engaging diverse stakeholders in designing an EPA framework. This iterative approach allowed for continuous refinement, shaping a comprehensive blueprint comprising 60 EPAs. Our approach involved two iterative cycles. In the first cycle, we utilized a modified-Delphi methodology with clinical competence committee (CCC) members, asking them whether each EPA should be included. In the second cycle, we used semi-structured interviews with General Practitioner (GP) trainers and trainees to explore their perceptions about the framework and refine it accordingly.

resultsDuring the first cycle, 14 CCC members agreed that all the 60 EPAs should be included in the framework. Regarding the formulation of each EPAs, 20 comments were given and 16 adaptations were made to enhance clarity. In the second cycle, the semi-structured interviews with trainers and trainees echoed the same findings, emphasizing the need of the EPA framework for improving workplace-based assessment, and its relevance to real-world clinical scenarios. However, trainees and trainers expressed concerns regarding implementation challenges, such as the large number of EPAs to be assessed, and perception of EPAs as potentially high-stakes.

conclusionAccommodating competing stakeholders' needs during the design process can significantly enhance the EPA implementation. Recognizing users as experts in their own experiences empowers them, enabling a priori identification of implementation barriers and potential pitfalls. By embracing a collaborative approach, wherein diverse stakeholders contribute their unique viewpoints, we can only create effective educational interventions to complex assessment challenges.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCompetency-Based EducationCurriculumCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchDelphi TechniqueEducation, Medical, GraduateGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicStakeholder ParticipationCurriculum designEPA assessmentGP TrainingPostgraduate medical educationWorkplace-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID38760773
PMCPMC11100052

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.