ArticleMedical science educator2025
The Best of Both Worlds: Exploring the Interplay Between Written and Verbal Feedback in the Continuum of Medical Education.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Generated Versus Human Supervisor Feedback on Medical Students' Clinical Clerkship Logs: Cross-Sectional Convergent Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Feedback plays a fundamental role in learning throughout the medical education continuum. Feedback could be provided through written and verbal format to improve students' performance. However, several factors were also found to influence feedback, such as students' and teachers' perceptions, students' receptivity, and cultural aspects, which further emphasized the complexity of the feedback process. Given the continuum of medical education from undergraduate to postgraduate stages, with different needs in each phase, and the importance of both written and verbal feedback in learning, it becomes essential to explore the interplay between verbal and written feedback throughout the continuum of medical education. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted involving undergraduate medical students and postgraduate medical residents in Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia (FMUI) to explore their perceptions towards verbal and written feedback. Respondents were selected using maximum variation sampling approach and data was collected through focus group discussions (FGD). Thematic qualitative analysis was conducted iteratively. Results: A total of 17 medical students and 13 residents were involved in this study. Two emerging themes were identified: (i) the amplifying effect between written and verbal feedback, and (ii) dynamic changes in the perceived value of feedback. The results highlighted the characteristics of both verbal and written feedback as perceived by trainees, and the benefit of combining the two formats to amplify their strengths, especially for students to engage in reflective dialogue with teachers while also receiving feedback documentation to revisit and facilitate acceptance of the feedback. The findings of this study also emphasized the dynamics of perceived value of both verbal and written feedback throughout the medical education continuum and its influencing factors, which should be considered when designing feedback opportunities catered to each stage in medical education. Conclusion: This study explored the perceived impact and values of verbal and written feedback. Rather than comparing between the two formats, we found that both verbal and written feedback could complement each other to achieve a more impactful feedback, while considering the factors influencing students and residents perceived values of feedback.
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.