ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Developing a framework for medical student feedback literacy using a triangulated thematic analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor regarding "developing a framework for medical student feedback literacy using a triangulated thematic analysis". A UK student perspective.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges and coping strategies for achieving terminology precision in EMI medical writing among Saudi medical students.Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFeedback literacy is critical for medical students to develop their competencies. However, a conceptualisation or framework of feedback literacy specific to the medical education context has yet to be developed. A comprehensive framework that addresses diverse feedback sources, dynamic environments, and the prioritisation of patient safety can guide the development of feedback literacy in medical students. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study explored and triangulated stakeholder perspectives (medical students, medical educators and patients) on medical student feedback literacy through semi-structured interviews. This information was then used to develop a feedback literacy framework. Data collection took place over approximately six months, from August 2023 to January 2024.
resultsNine focus group discussions and 26 individual interviews were conducted, involving 38 medical students from 14 medical schools, 15 medical educators from six medical schools and 11 patients from four healthcare facilities. The resulting transcripts were thematically analysed, and stakeholder perspectives were triangulated to identify emerging patterns. A feedback literacy framework for medical students was then designed based on the coded themes. The framework comprises seven elements, including a fundamental appreciation of feedback, preparation for and engagement in the process, analysis and evaluation of information and the need for emotional regulation to effectively internalise feedback and become safe, competent doctors.
conclusionThis study builds on existing frameworks to reveal novel elements of feedback literacy. Patient safety and reflective practice emerged as new components of feedback literacy exclusive to medical students, while emotional regulation and the use of multiple feedback sources were adapted to fit the medical education context. Thus, this framework addresses an identified gap and advances the conceptualisation of feedback literacy to suit medical students better.
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.