ArticleMedical science educator2025
The Impact of Coaching on Those Who Coach in Academic Medicine.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. 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.
- Mentees' Perspectives on Mentorship and Sponsorship in Academic Anesthesiology: Findings from a Single-institution Focus Group.Anesthesiology open · 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
Introduction: As coaching increases in Academic Health Centers (AHCs), a deeper understanding of its benefits is needed. One gap is understanding potential impact on coaches themselves. As coaching is grounded in principles of Appreciative Inquiry (positivity begets positivity), coaching may also benefit coaches. Answering this question will allow for broader assessment of return on investment of coaching programs. Methods: The authors developed an electronic survey using the theoretical framework of appreciative inquiry, collecting demographics and elements of the burnout scale rating (BSR), value of work rating (VWR), job satisfaction rating (JSR), and free-text benefits of being a coach. Using convenience sampling, the survey was distributed to coaches of physicians through author affiliations with coaching groups and listservs from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Faculty Affairs (GFA), an international coaching organization, and an AHC coaching group. Quantitative data were descriptively analyzed. Free-text answers underwent inductive thematic analysis. Results: Eighty-nine of 433 survey viewers (21%) completed it. The majority feel valued, experience minimal feelings of burnout, and endorse job satisfaction. Analysis identified three major benefits: personal fulfillment, interpersonal benefit, and professional growth and advancement. Discussion: Coaching positively impacts coaches themselves, adding evidence for its use in AHCs. Many coaches find their work deeply fulfilling as it aligns with their values, enhances self-awareness, and improves their wellbeing by fostering mindfulness and personal growth. Additionally, coaching strengthens their communication and leadership skills leading to better interactions with patients and trainees, professional development, and more effective leadership.
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.