Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40530624›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2025

Sliding Doors: Pivotal Research Decisions and Their Influence on Exploring Sensitive Topics.

Kori A LaDonna, Paula Cameron, Jamie Lynn Geringer, Anna MacLeod, Jerusalem Merkebu

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kori A LaDonnaDepartment of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4738-0146
Paula CameronDepartment of Continuing Professional Development & Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jamie Lynn GeringerDepartment of Internal Medicine, San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Anna MacLeodDepartment of Continuing Professional Development & Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0939-7767
Jerusalem MerkebuDepartment of Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3707-8920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingResearch DesignHumansQualitative Researchqualitative researchresearch designsensitive topics

Identifiers

PMID40530624
PMCPMC12175211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.