ArticleBMC medical education2025
Assessment of professionalism in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recentring Student Learning Within Professionalism Assessment: The Role of Structured Reflection in UK Medical Education.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- Simulosophists: evolving the professional identity of simulation practitioners.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A four-step implementation framework for professionalism competency in undergraduate medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Patient Confidentiality and Privacy Among Jordanian Medical Students: Factors Associated with Knowledge and Practice.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Professionalism in Practice: A Novel Approach to Integrating Small Doses of Case-Based Professionalism Education Into Monthly Grand Rounds.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfessionalism is a cornerstone of medical education and forms a foundation for ethical healthcare. Its importance is often overlooked because of implicit teaching and inconsistent evaluations arising from a lack of standardized definitions and assessment tools. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on assessing professionalism in undergraduate and graduate medical education over the past decade, identify existing approaches, and highlight knowledge gaps.
methodsThis scoping review involved a systematic search of PubMed, Lilacs, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed articles on professionalism in medical education from 2015 to 2025. After the screening process, two independent reviewers evaluated the data, and a third reviewer resolved any disagreements. The data were organized into tables and reported thematically.
resultsA total of 584 articles were identified, 72 of which met the inclusion criteria. The definitions of professionalism vary, reflecting cultural and institutional differences. Teaching professionalism encompasses role modeling, structured programs, simulation, and evaluation. However, faculty commitment and resource limitations hinder consistency. Assessment tools like Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) offer valuable insights but face implementation challenges. Teacher feedback is one of the most commonly used and effective strategies to develop professionalism. Teaching and assessment face challenges such as the lack of standardized definitions, time constraints, cultural resistance, and inconsistencies in evaluators' judgments. Institutional support and validated tools are essential to address these barriers.
conclusionsProfessionalism is essential to medical education, but it faces challenges in defining, teaching, and assessing. Therefore, a standardized yet adaptable definition that considers cultural factors is required. Current assessment methods are subjective, and implementation can be problematic. Evaluating professionalism requires balancing standardization, context, and meaningful feedback. Longitudinal, multi-source, and modern strategies enhance reliability. Future research should validate new methods, explore innovative feedback, and prioritize professionalism in competency-based medical education.
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.