Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Feedback and guiding questions as tools for reflective writing: a comparative study among undergraduate medical students in India.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReflective writing helps foster clinical reasoning, and professional development in medical students. This study attempts to compare the effectiveness of two interventions—Structured guiding questions and individualized feedback for enhancing reflective writing skills among undergraduate medical students in India. METHODOLOGY: A quasi-experimental, semi-qualitative study was conducted among 30 third-year MBBS students of Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups of 15 each. Group A used a structured guiding question, while Group B received individual feedback on the reflections from trained faculty. All students wrote five reflections pre- and post-intervention on their clinical experiences in Ophthalmology. The fifth reflections were assessed by three experts using a validated rubric. Pre- and post-intervention scores were compared using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, and Mann-Whitney U Test was used for intergroup comparison. Semi-quantitative feedback and open-ended responses were used for student perception.
resultsBoth interventions led to statistically significant improvements in reflective writing (p < 0.01). Guiding question Group’s average score improved from 1.33 to 2.27, and Feedback Groups from 1.13 to 2.00. No significant difference was observed between the post-intervention scores of both groups (p > 0.05). Feedback and guiding questions, both were perceived to be useful, as guiding questions helped structure the reflection, and feedback supported emotional connection.
conclusionBoth tools were found to be effective to improve the quality of reflections. Integrating guiding questions and feedback can prove to be a better strategy to support Competency Based Medical Education.
trial registration‘Clinical trial number not applicable.’
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.