ArticleBMC medical education2025
Identification of essential topics and procedural skills for inclusion in a contextualised undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care clerkship in Rwanda: results of a modified Delphi process.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.
methodsA list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 ("exclude from the curriculum") through 4 ("essential for inclusion"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.
resultsA total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill ("pain assessment") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionA modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.
trial registrationNot applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.
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.