ArticleBMC medical education2025
The student voice in quality assurance: what factors make for a great GP placement in the eyes of undergraduate medical students?
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A conducive clinical learning environment in primary care as a wicked problem: A scoping review of enablers, obstacles, and strategies.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith general practice becoming an increasingly important part of undergraduate medical education, it is vital to have reliable ways for assessing placement quality. The most prevalent tools for such assessment are the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) and the Manchester Clinical Placement Index (MCPI). These instruments were not specifically designed for use only in GP contexts and were developed without student involvement at inception. As a result, they may omit quality indicators valued by students on GP placement. This study sought to understand the quality of learning in GP from the student perspective and compare this to what is assessed by DREEM and MCPI. We hope the results of this study will inform the development of placement quality questionnaires inspired by the student voice.
methodsPurposive sampling was used to recruit 17 undergraduate medical students in academic years 3-5 at the University of Bristol into four focus groups. These ran from May 2023 to April 2024 and were based on a topic guide developed and agreed on by all authors. Theoretical saturation was achieved as no new themes emerged in the final focus group. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed in full. The transcripts underwent systematic coding using NVivo. The codes formed the basis for the thematic analysis.
resultsFour main themes emerged: a sense of belonging, quality of learning, efficiency of learning, and the qualities of the GP teacher. These themes are illustrated by pertinent quotes from the focus groups. Subthemes included being given appropriate clinical autonomy within the placement, timely access to resources, structured clinical activities, and tutor qualities such as enthusiasm and leadership.
conclusionsThis paper offers a new perspective on the quality of GP placements by focusing on the student experience. It identifies themes and subthemes that education teams should assess, beyond what's covered by existing tools like MCPI and DREEM. These include students' sense of belonging, perceived learning efficiency, and appropriate clinical autonomy. We argue that ignoring these areas neglects key aspects of student needs. We are piloting a new questionnaire incorporating these themes to better identify substandard placements and improve student experiences.
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.