ArticleBMC medical education2025
Educational utility of observational workplace-based assessment modalities in Australian vocational general practice training: a cross-sectional study.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirect observation, workplace-based assessments (WBAs) are a fundamental component of competency-based postgraduate medical education. In Australian general practice vocational training, external clinical teaching visits (ECTVs) are key observation-based WBAs. Traditionally, ECTVs are conducted face-to-face, but the COVID-19 pandemic saw the development and implementation of remote ECTV modalities. It remains unknown if perceived educational utility of remote ECTVs differs from traditional face-to-face ECTVs. This study explored the educational utility of ECTVs, including face-to-face and remote formats.
methodsGeneral practice trainees ('registrars') and external clinical teaching visitors ('ECT visitors', who are independent experienced GP observers) each completed a cross-sectional questionnaire following individual ECTVs undertaken in 2020. Outcomes included overall educational utility of the ECTV as perceived by registrars, registrar ratings of likelihood to change their clinical practice as a result of the ECTV, registrar ratings of likelihood to change their approach to learning/training as a result of the ECTV, and overall educational utility of the ECTV as perceived by the ECT visitor. Educational utility ratings (5-point scales) were analysed descriptively. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were employed to examine factors associated with dichotomised educational utility ratings.
resultsResponse rates were 41% (n = 801) for registrars and 39% (n = 742) for ECT visitors. Most registrars (64.1%) rated ECTV overall educational utility as 'very useful'; 58.5% and 47.9% of registrars rated their likelihood to change practice and approach to learning/training, respectively, as 'very likely'. No statistically significant differences in perceived educational utility ratings were identified between face-to-face and remote video/phone ECTVs (multivariable p-value range: .07-.96). Receiving feedback that was focused/specific/easy to translate into action was consistently associated with registrars' rating overall educational utility as 'very useful' (odds ratio (OR): 12.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.26 to19.9), rating likelihood to change practice as 'very likely' (OR: 2.5, 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.94), and rating likelihood to change learning/training approach as 'very likely' (OR: 3.19, 95%CI: 1.97 to 5.17).
conclusionsECTVs are perceived by registrars and ECT visitors to be educationally useful across different delivery modalities and formats. The quality and features of the feedback provided appear most important in ECTVs as an assessment for learning.
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.