ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Sliding Doors: Pivotal Research Decisions and Their Influence on Exploring Sensitive Topics.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction to "Sliding Doors: Pivotal Research Decisions and Their Influence on Exploring Sensitive Topics".The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- Sliding Doors: Pivotal Research Decisions and Their Influence on Exploring Sensitive Topics.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is the third in a series that qualitatively explores sensitive topics in health professions education (HPE). Here, our purpose is to consider how researchers' topical, methodological, and theoretical design choices create myriad up and downstream effects impacting study processes, outcomes, and - ultimately - implications for practice. Specifically, this paper uses the Sliding Doors metaphor as a thought exercise to consider alternate research paths for Geringer and colleagues' exploration of the imposter phenomenon (Paper 2), contemplating the what ifs had authors used a different methodology, incorporated other theoretical lenses, or chose to focus their exploration of self-assessment from an entirely different vantage point. By imagining how design decisions at critical junctures of the research journey simultaneously open and close doors to different ways of understanding, we aim to both highlight the richness and complexity of qualitative inquiry, and inspire researchers to consider the multiple pathways available for exploring sensitive topics in ways that are rigorous, creative, and ethically sound.
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.