ArticleThe American journal of hospice & palliative care2025
Structuring Palliative Care Education for Medical Students: Impact of a Novel Framework and Pocket Card.
Article in The American journal of hospice & palliative care, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
IntroductionPalliative care (PC) education is not uniformly provided across U.S. medical schools. While PC competencies for medical students have been articulated, no student-facing, unifying framework for competency-based PC learning exists.MethodsIn 2022, we developed a student-facing organizing framework (the "6 Ps") based on existing PC competencies and created a pocket card introducing foundational PC concepts organized within the 6 Ps framework. In 2023, we provided a mandatory 15-minute session to introduce the 6 Ps and pocket card to the first-year class of our large, urban medical school. We provided voluntary pre- and post- session surveys to evaluate usability and impact of the framework and pocket card.ResultsOne hundred-twenty students of the 204-student class (59%) attended. Survey response rate was 106/120 (88%) pre-session and 101/120 (84%) post-session. Following the session, students agreed the 6 Ps was a good framework for conceptualizing PC (95/101; 94%), that the pocket card was understandable (96/101; 95%), and they would use the pocket card to teach fellow students about PC (85/101; 84%). Nearly all students endorsed learning novel concepts (95/100; 95%). Pre/post session comparison of self-assessed confidence approaching hypothetical clinical tasks, such as educating a patient about PC and hospice, revealed significant improvement (
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.