ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PARTNER: A Toolbox for Patient and Public Involvement Governance Within Health Professions Education Research.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Australian Podiatry Research in Workforce and Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Review
- How to … Maximise Your Clinical Education Research Impact.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders.The clinical teacher · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK-wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined.
methodsWe used a two-stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free-text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact.
resultsRound 1 survey respondents (n = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (n = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (n = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact. DISCUSSION: The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated 'system of impact' may maximise opportunities for stakeholders-researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders-to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term.
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.