ArticlePloS one2024
Developing an evaluation approach for the in-depth review of a new undergraduate medical programme as a complex system.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundA new undergraduate medical programme was instituted at the University of Botswana in 2009. In 2016, the Faculty of Medicine decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the programme. Participants at a planning workshop decided the review had to lead to an in-depth understanding of the programme. The challenge was to develop an evaluation process to achieve this aim. APPROACH: Standards and theories used in other programme evaluations were investigated. A steering committee developed a 'six-step process' for the review of the programme as a complex system. The process used three evaluation models and various sources of evaluation standards to derive 90 evaluation questions. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using 96 different instruments, with data triangulation prominently featured. Data analysis used an interpretivist approach. The review process was validated against the Cilliers's ten features of a complex system. VALIDATION: The review process was validated against Cilliers's ten features of a complex system. We found that the 'six-step process' illuminated each of these features in the MBBS programme in turn, and was therefore a valid way of evaluating this programme as a complex system. DISCUSSION: In the process of designing and using the 'six-step process' to evaluate a complex medical programme important lessons were learnt: starting the process with complexity theory at the forefront; being as inclusive as possible in data collection; also applying complexity theory to the evaluation of smaller programme components as 'mini-complex systems'; and managing one's inevitable insider bias. CONCLUSION AND UTILITY: The 'six-step process' as it stands or in adaptation is likely to be useful in similar situations, where evaluators perceive the object of their evaluation to be a complex system, or a component of such a system.
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.