ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Measuring the impact of medical education in resource limited settings: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery identified workforce training as a key area of investment to improve access to essential surgical care. Many non-governmental organizations and universities have attempted to contribute to training and upskilling of providers in resource limited settings through educational programs. However, there are no widely agreed upon metrics for measuring the long-term success of these programs. A scoping review was conducted to assess varying methods used to measure impact, with a specific interest in patient-level impact. This scoping review was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The database search retrieved 1504 articles, of which 32 were included that quantitatively evaluated impact of medical education programs. Of the 32 articles, 6 measured patient-level impact defined by increased patient volumes after the education program or improved outcomes (decreased complications and mortality rates). The remaining 26 articles focused on provider-level impact primarily defined by skill acquisition and retention, as well as career advancement as a result of increased training. Provider-level impact was mostly assessed within 12 months of the program while patient-level impact was assessed longer after the program. There is a need to improve and standardize tools for measuring the impact of medical education. Patient impact should be the primary metric to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational program, and future tools should consider the long-term impact of training on the whole surgical workforce as opposed to a singular specialty.
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.