ArticleBMC medical education2025
Implementation and evaluation of a communication coaching program: a CFIR-Informed qualitative analysis mapped onto a logic model.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoaching programs in graduate medical education have the potential to impact trainee development across multiple core competencies but require rigorous program evaluation to ensure effectiveness. We sought to qualitatively evaluate the implementation of a multi-departmental, faculty-led communication coaching program using a logic model framework.
methodsStudy participants were selected from four key stakeholder groups: resident coachees, faculty coaches, medical education leaders, and programmatic sponsors. 30-45 min semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed, and de-identified for the analysis. Interviews captured stakeholders' perspectives on physicians' communication training needs, stakeholders perceived and actual roles, stakeholders' involvement in the program, factors influencing the implementation process, and strategies for programmatic improvement, sustainment, and spread. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the codebook development and data analysis. A combined inductive/deductive approach was used to develop a 20-item codebook, followed by a team-based thematic analysis. A strong intercoder agreement (Cohen's kappa coefficient κ = 0.83) ensured coding consistency. The emerging themes were then mapped onto four domains of a logic model: Context, Inputs and Outputs, Outcomes, and Evaluation.
results35 interviews were conducted between November 2021 and April 2022 with representation from all stakeholder groups, including 10 resident coachees (who received coaching), 10 faculty coaches (who served as coaches and underwent coaching-specific faculty development), 9 medical education leaders (who designed and implemented program), and programmatic sponsors (who provided financial support). We mapped 8 emergent themes onto the critical domains of a logic model for program evaluation. For the domain of Context, themes included (1) gap in communication education and (2) patient-centeredness. For the domain of Inputs/Outputs, themes included (1) investment in the program and (2) perceived program value. For the domain of Outcomes, themes included (1) learning-focused outcomes and (2) patient-related outcomes. For the domain of Evaluation, themes included (1) defining success and (2) challenges with evaluation.
conclusionsMapping CFIR-informed themes onto a logic model for program evaluation presents a novel strategy for integrating program implementation and evaluation, both of which are essential to effective educational programming. These findings can be used to guide future programmatic modifications to better meet the needs of key stakeholders.
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.