ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2024
National Family Medicine Residency Outcomes Project Methodology.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strong Obstetric Care Training in Family Medicine Residency: Bolstering the Number of Family Physicians Attending Births.Family medicine · 2026Article
- Residency Characteristics Associated With Pregnancy Care Among Graduates: A Family Medicine Residency Outcomes Project Study.Family medicine · 2025Article
- The Association Between Residency Characteristics and Graduates Caring for Children: A Family Medicine Residency Outcomes Project.Family medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple specialties including family medicine are engaging in a robust re-envisioning of residency training that culminates with new program requirements. No large-scale prospective studies linking curriculum to graduate outcomes have been available to guide the new standards. This report describes the methodology including representativeness and response rates of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Education Research Alliance (CERA) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) National Family Medicine Residency Outcomes Project (FM-ROP). Methods: FM-ROP is a prospective cohort study that followed ABFM diplomates who graduated in 2018 into practice. A CERA survey conducted in 2018 measured residency exposures as reported by program directors. We measured graduate outcomes through the 2021 National Graduate Survey (NGS). We compared participant demographics to available demographics of the sample frame using bivariate analysis. Results: The response rate for the 2018 CERA program director survey was 43.3% (254/587). The response rate to the 2021 NGS was 45.1% (1,623/3,596). After merging the two data sets, our final analytic sample included 779 graduates from 211 residencies. Graduates from larger programs and those with an MD degree were more likely to be included in the matched data set. Conclusion: This study is the first national cohort study in any specialty that follows residency graduates by assessing program director perspectives on their training, including program structures and processes, and then linking this to graduate data on practice patterns and outcomes. The methodology of this project could be used in other specialties to help guide residency redesign.
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.