Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915772›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2024

The hidden professionalism curriculum: Teach it, see it, do it and repeat!

Scott W Oliver, Kathleen Collins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Scott W OliverMedical Education Department, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, G71 8BB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9345-1913
Kathleen CollinsMedical Education Department, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, G71 8BB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2289-0537

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Professionalism is a complex and multifaceted component of medical education. Historically, students have learned about professionalism informally and as part of the hidden curriculum. Currently, professionalism is increasingly prominent in formal curricula, but uncertainty remains regarding optimal professionalism pedagogies. In this study, the authors explored medical students' exposure to professional topics and considered factors that enabled students to correctly recognize and manage these issues. Methods: Convenience sampling was used to recruit medical students from existing clinical attachments at the authors' hospital. A semi-structured interview format was used to explore participants' awareness of professional issues within fictional vignettes created using published regulatory guidance. The interview transcripts and interview guide field notes were then analyzed. Results: The data suggest that students require a combination of didactic teaching and experiential learning to reliably recognize and manage professional issues. Didactic teaching alone enabled topic recognition, but with uncertainty about management strategies. Experiential learning alone led to erratic recognition of the subject and reliance upon role modeling to guide its management. This work stimulates faculty development to enhance teaching professionalism. Conclusions: Undergraduate medical education on professionalism must be introduced into the formal curriculum. Didactic teaching is required to scaffold experiential learning. Failure to do so renders students unable to reliably recognize or manage professional issues encountered in clinical practice. Further research questions were identified to progress this work.

Indexed as

Hidden CurriculumLearningPedagogyProfessionalismTeachingUndergraduate

Identifiers

PMID38915772
PMCPMC11195607

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.