ArticleBMC medical education2025
Enhancing medical improvisation training: a mixed-methods approach to curriculum modification.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMedical improvisation (improv) is gaining recognition as an effective method for enhancing communication skills among healthcare professionals. Successful implementation of medical improv training relies on dynamic refinement of curricula. In this project, we articulate a theoretically grounded framework for modifying a medical improv program that puts the focus on the crucial yet often overlooked process of curriculum refinement in this growing field.
methodsWe used the Collaborative Improvement Model [1] as a guiding framework for the curriculum revision. Our analytic approach involved a sub-analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected as a part of the Alda Healthcare Experience (AHE) mixed-methods process evaluation including surveys, in-depth interviews, and observations. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from key stakeholders of the AHE program including clinical co-facilitators, improv co-facilitators, and participants. Our analysis was guided by interpretive descriptive design, drawing on inductive and deductive approaches as well as quantitative and qualitative mixed-methods triangulation.
resultsInductive analysis of co-facilitator interviews revealed four dimensions for interpreting the identified areas of revision: desirability (of the revision), feasibility (of the revision), triangulation (whether different sources of data are divergent or corroborated), and evaluability (whether the revision would confound the program evaluation). We illustrate how this framework is implemented through specific examples from our curriculum revision.
conclusionOur manuscript articulates a theoretically grounded framework for revising medical improv curriculum. This structured yet adaptable framework could be useful for curricular modification in other medical improv and experiential learning curricula.
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.