Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831131›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2025

Could the R2C2 Feedback and Coaching Model Enhance Feedback Literacy Behaviors: A Qualitative Study Exploring Learner-Preceptor Feedback Conversations.

Subha Ramani, Heather Armson, Tessa Hanmore, Rachelle Lee-Krueger, Karen D Könings, Amanda Roze des Ordons, Marygrace Zetkulic, Joan Sargeant, Jocelyn M Lockyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Subha RamaniHarvard Medical School, MGH Institute for Health Professions Education, Boston, Massachusetts, US.ORCID 0000-0002-8360-4031
Heather ArmsonDepartment of Family Medicine, Office of Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7147-6749
Tessa HanmoreDepartments of Ophthalmology, Psychiatry, and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Queen's University, 99 University Ave, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4654-9969
Rachelle Lee-KruegerOffice of Continuing Medical Education and Professional Development, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6122-1868
Karen D KöningsSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, NL.ORCID 0000-0003-0063-8218
Amanda Roze des OrdonsDepartments of Critical Care Medicine, Anesthesiology, and Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, 3260 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6480-4946
Marygrace ZetkulicHackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey, US.ORCID 0000-0002-2778-2124
Joan SargeantContinuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0451-3674
Jocelyn M LockyerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, 3280 Hospital Drive NW University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3928-4827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Feedback literacy (FBL) is a critical skill for learners encompassing four behaviors: appreciating feedback, making judgements, managing affect, and taking action. Little guidance has been available for clinical preceptors to promote FBL. The R2C2 feedback and coaching model that guides teachers through building Relationships, exploring Reactions and Reflections, discussing Content and Coaching to co-develop an action plan for follow-up may support FBL. This study sought to identify whether R2C2 conversations operationalized FBL behaviors and the factors that appeared to influence FBL. Methods: Based on data from a multi-institutional, qualitative study involving 15 dyads of learners (residents and medical students) and their physician preceptors, a secondary analysis of R2C2-guided feedback conversations and debriefing interviews was undertaken. A framework analysis mapped the data to FBL behaviors and explored factors that impacted behaviors in the context of the research and theories underpinning R2C2 and FBL. Results: Most elements of FBL behaviors were demonstrated in R2C2 conversations. Appreciating feedback and making judgements were most consistently noted. There was less evidence of managing affect as learners indicated acceptance of feedback. There was variability in the co-creation of action plans. Some created action plans, others had incomplete or no plan for immediate action or follow-up. FBL appeared to be impacted by learner-preceptor relationships, active learner engagement in feedback discussions, and personal characteristics. Discussion: Our analysis demonstrated that effective use of the R2C2 model could enhance FBL behaviors provided attention was paid to optimizing all phases of R2C2, particularly co-creation of action plans for follow-up.

Indexed as

FeedbackFormative FeedbackLearningMentoringPreceptorshipStudents, MedicalCommunicationFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID39831131
PMCPMC11740720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.