Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39901228›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Use of the measurement tools of TeamSTEPPS

Hümeyra Dener, Melih Elçin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Hümeyra DenerClinical Nurse at Department of Ophthalmology, PhD in Department of Medical Education and Informatics Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. humeyra.dener@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4832-6515
Melih ElçinIPE, Springfield College School of Health Sciences, Springfield, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-906X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeamSTEPPS

methodsThe study was conducted, planned, and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched with the keyword, ″TeamSTEPPS″ in December 2023.

resultsForty-nine studies using any or both of T-TAQ and T-TPQ were considered eligible for this review. Twenty one of the studies were conducted with students, particularly nursing students; and twenty eight with health professionals, particularly nurses. TeamSTEPPS

conclusionT-TAQ and T-TPQ were used in the studies involving the students and healthcare professionals with or without educational programs at all levels of healthcare education continuum and service, and were applied at various time intervals according to the aim of gathering data on the teamwork constructs seperately or holistically.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementHealth PersonnelPatient Care TeamAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPatient SafetySurveys and QuestionnairesInterprofessional educationMeasurement toolsScoping reviewTeamSTEPPS®T-TAQT-TPQ

Identifiers

PMID39901228
PMCPMC11792722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.