Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38813152›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Systematic review of feedback literacy instruments for health professions students.

Mohamad Nabil Mohd Noor, Sahar Fatima, Jessica Grace Cockburn, Muhammad Hibatullah Romli, Vinod Pallath, Wei-Han Hong, Jamuna Vadivelu, Chan Chong Foong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 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

8 authors.

Mohamad Nabil Mohd NoorMedical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sahar FatimaMedical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jessica Grace CockburnDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Muhammad Hibatullah RomliDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
Vinod PallathJeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia.
Wei-Han HongMedical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jamuna VadiveluMedical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chan Chong FoongMedical Education and Research Development Unit, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successfully managing and utilizing feedback is a critical skill for self-improvement. Properly identifying feedback literacy level is crucial to facilitate teachers and learners especially in clinical learning to plan for better learning experience. The present review aimed to gather and examine the existing definitions and metrics used to assess feedback literacy (or parts of its concepts) for health professions education. A systematic search was conducted on six databases, together with a manual search in January 2023. Quality of the included studies were appraised using the COSMIN Checklist. Information on the psychometric properties and clinical utility of the accepted instruments were extracted. A total 2226 records of studies were identified, and 11 articles included in the final analysis extracting 13 instruments. These instruments can be administered easily, and most are readily accessible. However, 'appreciating feedback' was overrepresented compared to the other three features of feedback literacy and none of the instruments had sufficient quality across all COSMIN validity rating sections. Further research studies should focus on developing and refining feedback literacy instruments that can be adapted to many contexts within health professions education. Future research should apply a rigorous methodology to produce a valid and reliable student feedback literacy instrument.

Identifiers

PMID38813152
PMCPMC11133658

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.