Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40763291›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2025

Measuring the impact of medical education in resource limited settings: A scoping review.

Emily M Jones, Eloise Stanton, Shervin Etemad, Alyssa Bautista, Jonathan Diaz, Elizabeth Cote, William P Magee Iii, Allyn Auslander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Emily M JonesDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7658-369X
Eloise StantonDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-8584
Shervin EtemadDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.
Alyssa BautistaDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.
Jonathan DiazDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.
Elizabeth CoteDepartment of Global Programs, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.
William P Magee IiiDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.
Allyn AuslanderDepartment of Research, Operation Smile Inc, Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40763291
PMCPMC12324669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.