Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39925453›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2024

When, where and how should we assess professionalism in undergraduate medical education? Practical tips from an international conference roundtable discussion.

Caitlin Patterson, Alexandra Goodwin, Kathleen Collins, Scott Oliver, Catherine Paton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Caitlin PattersonMedical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5600-150X
Alexandra GoodwinMedical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2650-8278
Kathleen CollinsMedical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2289-0537
Scott OliverMedical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9345-1913
Catherine PatonMedical Education, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of professionalism in healthcare disciplines is a challenging and nuanced topic in medical education. The literature, although continually emerging, remains in its infancy in regards to the role of the assessment of professionalism, appropriate timing for assessment, methods to assess professionalism and the benefits and implications of assessment of professionalism. With emergence of healthcare professionalism in both undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and increasing awareness of professionalism's pertinent role in developing as a healthcare practitioner, the concept of assessing this topic is being discussed regularly in international fora, but as yet there is no consensus decision in how best to proceed. The authors have over a decade of experience researching, promoting and delivering healthcare professionalism education. They presented a roundtable discussion to an international panel of medical educators at an international conference. The attendees represented multiple healthcare disciplines. Breakout rooms and pre-determined introductory questions were used to explore the international consensus on current thinking about assessment in healthcare professionalism. This paper presents these findings as practical tips for educators who are considering introducing or extending their assessment of undergraduate professionalism, all of which were taken from the main themes of the discussion. The aim of the paper is to support educators to think about their stance on this often divisive issue, consider their approaches and focus future research to clarify the remaining unknowns.

Indexed as

AssessmentHidden CurriculumInternationalPedagogyProfessionalProfessionalismUndergraduate

Identifiers

PMID39925453
PMCPMC11803192

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.