ArticleBMC medical education2025
Faculty development in health professions education: exploring need assessment, challenges, and opportunities in Vietnam.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaculty development (FD) is essential for strengthening health professions education, yet context specific evidence from emerging medical schools in lower- and middle-income settings remains limited. This study aimed to identify faculty development needs, perceived barriers, and preferred delivery formats at the College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity, with the goal of informing contextually appropriate program design.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional needs assessment was conducted using an electronic survey that addressed faculty development needs in teaching, research, and leadership; perceived barriers to accessing development initiatives; and preferred formats for organizing training programs.
resultsFrom 350 faculty members invited, 121 participated (response rate: 34.6%), representing a diverse range of disciplines. Across all domains, faculty rated most development topics as important or very important, with the highest mean scores observed for teaching evidence-based medicine, clinical teaching and supervision, assessment design, research methodology and international research collaboration. The study also identified significant barriers to FD such as time constraints (80%), language challenges in English-delivered programs (31%), and high program costs (36%). Despite these barriers, there was a notable preference for interactive training formats, with workshops and seminars (76%), and hands-on training (75%) being the most favored. Notably, 76% of respondents were willing to serve as trainers, indicating promising potential for peer-led FD initiatives. Qualitative analysis highlighted four themes: the need to prioritize clinical and adjunct faculty, the impact of workload and limited institutional support, demand for structured pedagogical and research training with international linkages, and the importance of linguistically and culturally adapted programs.
conclusionThis study identifies convergent faculty development priorities, barriers, and preferred strategies in a Vietnamese health professions context. The findings point to the value of flexible, affordable, and bilingual initiatives that emphasize core teaching, research, and leadership skills, explicitly target clinical and adjunct faculty, and make use of interactive and peer led formats. Multi institutional and longitudinal studies are warranted to examine how such programs can be implemented and to assess their impact on faculty practice and educational outcomes in similar 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.