Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38872142›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

A needs assessment for enhancing workplace-based assessment: a grounded theory 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

objectivesWorkplace-based assessment (WBA) has been vigorously criticized for not fulfilling its educational purpose by medical educators. A comprehensive exploration of stakeholders' needs regarding WBA is essential to optimize its implementation in clinical practice.

methodThree homogeneous focus groups were conducted with three groups of stakeholders: General Practitioner (GP) trainees, GP trainers, and GP tutors. Due to COVID-19 measures, we opted for an online asynchronous form to enable participation. An constructivist grounded theory approach was used to employ this study and allow the identification of stakeholders' needs for using WBA.

resultsThree core needs for WBA were identified in the analysis. Within GP Training, stakeholders found WBA essential, primarily, for establishing learning goals, secondarily, for assessment purposes, and, lastly, for providing or receiving feedback.

conclusionAll stakeholders perceive WBA as valuable when it fosters learning. The identified needs were notably influenced by agency, trust, availability, and mutual understanding. These were facilitating factors influencing needs for WBA. Embracing these insights can significantly illuminate the landscape of workplace learning culture for clinical educators and guide a successful implementation of WBA.

Indexed as

COVID-19Focus GroupsGrounded TheoryNeeds AssessmentWorkplaceClinical CompetenceFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleSARS-CoV-2General practiceMedical educationWorkplace-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID38872142
PMCPMC11177355

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.