ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
"Busting the hidden curriculum" a realist and innovative perspective to foster professional behaviors.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A scoping review of mentorship in Graduate Medical Education: a proposed conceptual framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- 'If You Don't Speak Up, It Will Eat You Up': A Critical Discourse Analysis of Voice and Silence in a Multicultural Clinical Healthcare System.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) study: a novel online initiative approach to professionalism education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Medical Students' Reflections on Transitioning to Their First General Practice Placement: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Professionalism and associated factors among health professions education students: A primary mixed-methods study from Qatar.PloS one · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary health professions education has long delineated the desired attributes of medical professionalism in the form of standard curricula and their role in forming professional behaviors (PBs) among aspiring doctors. However, existing research has shown the contradictory and powerful role of hidden curriculum (HC) in negatively influencing medical students' PBs through unspoken or implicit academic, cultural, or social standards and practices. These contrasting messages of formal curricula and HC lead to discordance and incongruence in future healthcare professionals developing professional identity formation. There is little research on PB modifying educational strategies and their determinants that medical schools adopt to bust the impact of HC. Consequently, it is unclear how the right PBs can be influenced, entrenched, and inculcated in undergraduate medical students, especially in their early clinical placements. The lack of such insight highlights a critical gap in the literature, nudging educators to take a realist stance to deal with this problem. Behavior psychology stresses shaping medical students' values and beliefs as salient mediators that influence intentions to pursue future PBs. Curiosity prevails about what would guide the educational interventions to target this behavior change. To help understand this concept, we present our design-based innovative perspective about PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) shaped by pluralistic theoretical models in the context of two European medical schools with diverse medical students, highlighting its non-parochial and transferable nature.
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.