ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2025
Asynchronous Technical Feedback: A Workshop for Training Surgical Instructors.
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Asynchronous learning is an efficient method for surgical trainees to gain technical skills by practicing in low-stakes and convenient settings. Effective asynchronous learning requires feedback. Prior work has highlighted the need to train surgical instructors in providing asynchronous technical feedback, as this involves unique skills related to giving feedback on learners' videos. While many existing curricula focus on optimal feedback practices, there remains a gap with regard to asynchronous technical feedback materials. Methods: Following Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development, we developed a 60-minute workshop, for participants across multiple contexts, on best practices for effective asynchronous technical feedback. We conducted a pilot workshop and then iteratively adjusted the flow and materials for subsequent workshop sessions. We followed survey design principles to create a postworkshop questionnaire evaluating how well the workshop addressed three of the educational objectives. Results: Forty-six participants attended four iterations of the workshop across three cities. Seven participants attended the pilot session of the workshop, and 39 participants joined the subsequent workshops. Of these 39 participants, 33 (85%) completed the questionnaire. Twenty-eight (85%) of 33 participants indicated that they could state a barrier to providing technical feedback after the workshop, while 30 (91%) of 33 could provide a situation in which to use asynchronous technical feedback. Twenty-seven (82%) of 33 could state a way in which to improve the quality of asynchronous technical feedback. Discussion: Educators may use these materials to equip instructors with tools for effectively giving learners the feedback needed for asynchronous technical skill acquisition.
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.