Trial reportAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2026
Does learner handover bias ratings, entrustment decisions, and feedback across repeated encounters with the same resident?
Trial report in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2026. 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.
- The Wicked Problem of Selection and Competency-Based Education: Applying TRIZ Inversion to the Graduate Medical Education Selection Process.Perspectives on medical education · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learner Handover (LH) involves sharing information about learners between faculty supervisors, aligning with a growth mindset. Previous studies, however, demonstrate LH can bias subsequent ratings. Most of these studies collect ratings after a single encounter but faculty often have multiple interactions with learners potentially mitigating LH-related bias. This study explored if LH influences faculty ratings, entrustment decisions and feedback after observing several encounters of the same learner. Internal medicine faculty (n = 57) from five medical schools were randomly assigned to one of three study groups. Each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching five simulated resident-patient encounter videos of the same white male resident. Participants rated each video using an entrustment scale, the Mini-CEX and provided written feedback. Feedback was assigned a valence score (-3 to + 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the mean ratings across the LH conditions (positive, control, negative) for entrustment [3.42, 3.26, 3.62], Mini-CEX [6.00, 5.90, 6.28] or feedback valence ratings [-0.34, -0.99, -0.74]. In the post-study questionnaire, most raters reported the LH had minimal effect on their decisions. Only 29% of raters guessed the true purpose of the study. Unlike previous studies, LH had no effect on ratings, entrustment decisions, or feedback after one encounter, nor over subsequent encounters with the same resident. These findings suggest LH's influence may vary and highlight the need for replication under different conditions, including diverse genders and equity-deserving groups, to identify factors that contribute to or mitigate bias.
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.