ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Curriculum and program evaluation in medical education: a short systematic literature review.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality Assurance in Laparoscopic Gynecological Training: A Narrative Review of Standards with a Multicenter Expert Perspective on Pathways Toward Effective Education and Care.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Bridging a curriculum gap: a structured model for integrating head and neck ultrasound training into undergraduate dental education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Development of an Evaluation Index System for Chinese Medicine Specialist Nurse Training Effectiveness: A Delphi-AHP Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Podcasting in primary care: attitudes of Scottish GP specialty trainees and trainers towards podcast-based education in primary care.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Mapping the medical status of patients in a dental school: adapting dental curricula to demographic change - a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Theoretical models to guide undergraduate medical curriculum development: an integrative review.BMC medical education · 2025Review
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
Medical education is constantly evolving worldwide and facing various challenges. To cope with these, continuous and fruitful evaluation of an educational program is the need of the day. This study aims to know the purpose of evaluation, various theories related to program evaluation, and different models of curriculum and program evaluation. This will help educationists evaluate their programs fruitfully and effectively according to their needs and objectives. Different search engines including Medline's PubMed interface, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Review databases using keywords, curriculum evaluation, evaluation models, and evaluation strategies in education, were searched without any date restrictions, and 20 full-text articles were selected for review and data extraction. While reviewing the literature it was found that most of the modern educational program and curriculum evaluation models are based on the reductionist, system, and complexity theories of evaluation. The experimental/quasi-experimental model is based majorly on the linear approach and reductionism, but its drawback is that it is impractical for the whole curriculum and sometimes ethically unfavorable. Kirkpatrick's model, Philips' model, the CIPP model, and the logic model are based on the system and complexity theory and are more practical in medical education. Each of these models has its advantages and limitations. In this review, the authors discussed the important distinctive features of these evaluation theories and models and their applicability and usefulness in evaluating different programs and curricula.
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.