ArticleBMC medical education2024
Feedback: "overly nice" or a "roasting culture"? a student partnership approach in exploring a feedback literacy strategy in undergraduate pharmacy and medical education.
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.
- Barriers and facilitators of the implementation for the antimicrobial Social Norm Feedback (SNF) intervention strategy in primary care institutions: a qualitative study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research emphasises the need for mutual understanding of feedback purpose, i.e. staff and student feedback literacy. Interprofessional practice is crucial to effective patient care. While undergraduates increasingly learn and are assessed together, less is known of their shared or differing experiences of feedback. This study aimed to explore how students and faculty in medicine and pharmacy perceive an evidence-informed draft feedback strategy.Methods A student partnership approach was taken to this cross-faculty study. Focus groups of faculty from the Schools of Medicine (SOM) and Pharmacy (SOP) were undertaken by a faculty researcher. A SOP student facilitated student focus groups across both schools. Data was thematically analysed using template analysis by staff and students from both schools.Results Three over-arching themes are described: feedback goals, environment and design. Heterogeneous conceptualisations make it difficult for faculty to signpost and students to recognise feedback. Feedback goals and operationalisation contrasted in junior and senior years. Junior students were frustrated by "overly nice", generic feedback; senior students baulked at a "roasting culture", more marked for medical students.Conclusion Despite an expanse of research-informed theory, processes in practice are unsupportive of feedback literacy. Even within programmes, context differs and must be considered when embedding a positive whole-programme feedback culture.Clinical Trial number Not applicable.
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.