ArticleMedical education online2025
Exploring the impact of academic coaching interventions on student outcomes in graduate healthcare and medical education: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Medical education online, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic coaching is an increasingly vital strategy in higher education, fostering skill development, academic resilience, and personal growth. While research suggests that coaching enhances performance and key competencies such as time management, stress reduction, and self-advocacy, systematic evaluations are needed to assess its effectiveness across graduate medical and healthcare education. This systematic scoping review investigates the effects of academic coaching interventions on academic and professional outcomes among graduate-level health and medical students. We conducted a comprehensive literature search and screening process following the PRISMA methodology and registered in the International Database of Education Systematic Reviews (IDESR #IDESR000171). Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework to contextualize findings. The review revealed notable variation in target populations, program structures, focus areas, and data collection methods. Medical student studies addressed both early and advanced learners, with interventions ranging from self-regulated learning and executive/life coaching to academic remediation and longitudinal coaching relationships. Tailored academic coaching interventions show promise in supporting learner development across a range of outcomes. However, the effectiveness of these programs depends on their alignment with learners' specific needs, educational stages, and institutional contexts. Future coaching initiatives should be designed with attention to the Master Adaptive Learner framework to ensure responsiveness to the evolving demands of health professions 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.