ArticlePloS one2024
Internal evaluation of medical programs is more than housework: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Leveraging AI to Democratize the Hidden Curriculum in Medical Education: An Implementation Framework.Medical science educator · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this scoping review was to explore current program evaluation practices across various medical schools.
methodsWe conducted searches in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier) and ERIC (ed.gov) for original research and review articles related to medical education evaluation with key words evaluation, program, medical education, pre-registration, framework, curriculum, outcomes, evaluation, quality. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) process for scoping reviews.
resultsThirty-two articles were included. Studies were primarily concerned with either proving (n = 21) or improving efficacy of their programs (n = 11). No studies aimed at comparing programs. Nine were literature reviews. Others aimed to develop a new evaluation model (n = 7) or apply (n = 12) or validate (n = 4) an existing model (or part thereof). Twenty-two studies explicitly identified an evaluation model they had used or would recommend. Most frequently used models for evaluation were: Context-Input-Process-Product, Kirkpatrick, World Federation Medical Education, and the Standards by Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Overall, evaluations were learner-focused and accreditation driven with a minority considering the broader influences of program success.
conclusionProgram evaluation is fundamental to driving the quality of education delivered to produce workforce-ready healthcare professionals. The focus of current evaluations is on student experience and content delivery with a significant gap in the existing literature on evaluation related to staff, learner/staff well-being, equity, diversity, and meta evaluation.
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.