SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Medical professionalism education: a systematic review of interventions, outcomes, and sustainability.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The emerging trends of healthcare professions' ethics education in recent 10 years: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Qualitative analysis of a health systems science (HSS) course incorporating early clinical exposure.Medicine · 2026Article
- Understanding Barriers to Effective Injury Care by Medical Trainees and Traffic Law Enforcement First Responders in Low-Income Contexts in Uganda (Motor Registry Project Part 2): Convergent Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) study: a novel online initiative approach to professionalism education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A four-step implementation framework for professionalism competency in undergraduate medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- PREview scores and applicant conduct indicators: distinguishing current professional readiness from historical events.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cognition, affect, and learning aspirations in public health development history education: cross-sectional associations in a large sample of university students in Eastern China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a Korean Version of the Digital Professionalism Self-Assessment Instrument for Nurses.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Professionalism and associated factors among health professions education students: A primary mixed-methods study from Qatar.PloS one · 2026Article
- Re-defining professionalism in medicine in an era of rapid change: a modified Delphi study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical professionalism (MP) is a vital competency in undergraduate medical students as it enhances the quality and safety of patient care as it includes professional values, attitudes and professional behaviours (PB). However, medical institutes are uncertain about how optimally it can be learnt and assessed. This review aims to systematically provide a summary of evidence from systematic reviews reporting MP educational interventions, their outcomes and sustainability to foster PB. Methods: Eight major databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Health business, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Web of Science) and grey literature were systematically searched from database inception to June 2024. The inclusion criteria were (1) systematic review studies (2) of educational interventions of any type; (3) targeting any aspect of MP; (4) provided to undergraduate medical students; and (5) with no restrictions on comparator group or outcomes assessed. A qualitative narrative summary of included reviews was conducted as all included reviews did not conduct quantitative nor meta-analysis of results but rather a qualitative summary. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Results: The search identified 397 references for eligibility screening. Ultimately, eight systematic reviews were deemed eligible for inclusion. The majority of these reviews have reported a successful improvement in various aspects of MP (i.e., MP as a whole, empathy and compassion) through teaching and exposure to hidden curriculum. The included studies displayed significant methodological heterogeneity, with varying study designs and assessment methodologies to professional outcomes. A gap remains in reporting the sustainable effect on professionalism traits and on a standardised approach to MP teaching. Conclusion: This review suggests that more interventions are needed in this area with a focus on methodological quality and teaching methods in a multicultural context to support PB and professional identity formation. Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO [CRD42024495689].
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.