ArticleMedical education2025
Designing effective clinical education spaces: A scoping review.
Article in Medical education, 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.
- Designing effective clinical education spaces: A scoping review.Medical education · 2025Article
- Editorial: Distributed training and rural health professions education.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical education in health facilities is critical for health professional student learning. However, consideration of health professional students' learning when designing and building hospitals appears to be neglected. Evidence-based health facility design may encourage student learning and add value to the investment in facilities. We ask, 'What does the literature say about the consideration of health professional students' education when designing health facilities?'
methodsWe developed a scoping review protocol following Arksey and O'Malley's Guidelines. Our search strategy employed the following concepts: Health Facilities, Facility design, Health professional students, Learning and teaching and health professional education. Forty articles were identified for inclusion. Databases comprised Medline, Art and Architecture Archive, Avery Index to Architecture and Periodicals (EBSCO), CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Proquest Central and Web of Science.
resultsArticles were published between 1963 and 2023. There was a range of publication types originating mostly from North America and the United Kingdom (UK). Only four articles describe original research. Medical students are the most reported individual student group. Links are made between principles of learning and the built environment (45% of articles). Recognised features supporting learning include floor space, various building elements and their attributes, environmental features and furniture, fittings and equipment. Evaluation is lacking, and building codes and standards are noted in only three publications. DISCUSSION: The review reveals a scarcity of published evidence documenting how health professional student learning is considered in health facility design. While design professionals may address these needs in practice, the lack of accessible literature limits evidence-based approaches. Opportunities exist for educators and administrators to advocate for the inclusion of students and their learning needs in collaboration with colleagues from other disciplines such as architecture and design. Documenting and publishing these collaborations will strengthen the evidence base, ensuring learning is more intentionally integrated in clinical settings.
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.