ArticleBMC medical education2024
International medical students' experiences of psychological safety in feedback episodes: a focused ethnographic study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical behavior profiles among nursing interns and their determinants: a latent profile analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFeedback and psychological safety are well-established concepts within medical education, vital for student learning and progress. However, the concepts remain unexplored in the context of international students. This area deserves attention given the unique challenges faced by the overseas medical students due to cultural differences. The present study examines international students' experiences of psychological safety in feedback interactions in a Scottish undergraduate medical programme.
methodsA focused ethnographic approach was adopted to explore international students' experiences and perceptions of psychological safety in their feedback experiences. Data were collected in the form of field observations and semi-structured interviews, involving both student and faculty participants. Approximately 13hrs of fieldwork and a total of 11 interviews were conducted. These were analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.
resultsData analysis identified four key themes: feedback delivery, educator attributes, cultural factors and longitudinal educational relationships. Both staff and student participants highlighted how environmental factors such as room design and group size functioned as enablers or barriers to psychological safety in feedback episodes. Additionally, students appreciated tutors who expressed vulnerability and demonstrated awareness of their cultural backgrounds. Students described significant differences between the feedback approaches in the host (UK) institute and that in their home country. Longitudinal associations fostered trust and familiarity with peers and tutors, enhancing students' receptivity to learning and feedback.
conclusionThis present study highlights cultural differences in feedback practices across countries and their impact on psychological safety among international students. It stresses the importance of integrating overseas students by considering group dynamics, environment and diverse student needs. Staff awareness of cultural variability, openness to tutor vulnerability and fostering long-term educational relationships can greatly enhance psychological safety in learning and teaching activities. These insights are relevant amidst the growing globalisation of medical education and the mobility of students across borders, advocating for tailored integration to optimise their learning experience and achievement.
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.