ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
Multi-source feedback in undergraduate medical education: a pilot study.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 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.
- Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multisource feedback (MSF) and 360-degree assessment collate feedback from multiple perspectives for a particular person. Since MSF aligns with programmatic assessment, undergraduate programs could theoretically incorporate this practice. This paper details the creation of an undergraduate medical education (UGME) MSF and its initial pilot. Methods: The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) collaborated with researchers from four Canadian UGME programs to adapt an existing tool, MCC 360. They adjusted MSF components for clerkship and piloted the revised version at one Canadian medical school. Student participants completed a post-evaluation survey. Researchers chose the Norcini et al. framework to inform the tool adaptation and evaluation. Results: The new MCC 360 UGME incorporated MSF from three rater groups (patients, self, and a mixed group of supervisors, residents, hospital staff and/or peers) and compiled it into an individualized report. An independent facilitator reviewed and discussed the report with the student. Students indicated that the MCC 360 UGME had a major to moderate impact on their learning. They appreciated receiving patient feedback and working with facilitators to identify areas of improvement. Although students found completing the MSF requirements to be burdensome, they found it to be acceptable to provide educational benefits. Conclusion: Implementing MSF in Canadian UGME would allow clerkship students to access feedback from patients and others in the workplace. It would also socialize students to MSF early in their careers.
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.