ArticleKorean journal of medical education2025
Competency gaps in respiratory therapy: evidence from a global survey.
Article in Korean journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRespiratory therapy (RT) has become a vital component of modern healthcare, particularly in managing acute and chronic pulmonary conditions. The rising global burden of respiratory diseases has amplified the demand for skilled RT professionals capable of performing high-risk, low-frequency procedures with precision. Despite the shift toward competency-based education in healthcare, RT training remains fragmented. Disparities in training quality, assessment methodologies, and simulation access result in inconsistent clinical competencies among RT graduates. The absence of a standardized, globally recognized competency framework further compounds these challenges, affecting workforce readiness and patient safety. To date, no global study has systematically quantified competency disparities across RT programs using a standardized framework, leaving a critical gap in comparative evidence needed to guide educational policy and global accreditation.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting RT professionals, educators, and institutional leaders across multiple countries. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and gap percentage analysis to identify variations in training practices, competency expectations, and observed deficiencies.
resultsFindings revealed significant competency gaps, especially in advanced interventions like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and lung ultrasound. Inconsistencies in assessment tools, simulation integration, and remediation protocols were noted across institutions. The majority of respondents emphasized the need for competency standardization.
conclusionThe study confirms a pressing global need for a structured, evidence-based competency framework in RT education. Standardization will improve clinical consistency, facilitate workforce mobility, and enhance patient care outcomes worldwide.
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.