ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Patient perspectives on physician competence: Validation of the CanMEDS framework.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Competency frameworks such as CanMEDS anchor medical training and accountability, yet most validations privilege educators and seldom test whether patients recognize and prioritize the same architecture. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey (February-June 2025) of Lebanese adults (N = 403) to validate, from the patient perspective, the seven CanMEDS roles and to examine sociodemographic moderators of endorsement and rank priorities. A 103-item instrument combined five-point endorsements and forced ranking. Psychometric evaluation used polychoric exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis with diagonally weighted least squares; reliability was estimated with Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω. Robust linear regressions (HC4) modeled domain scores, and multinomial logistic regression analyzed rank priorities. Exploratory analysis supported seven factors explaining 68.6% of variance. Confirmatory analysis showed excellent fit with strong loadings and high internal consistency (α ≥ 0.90; ω ≥ 0.91). Men endorsed the Medical Expert role less than women (β=-2.96, p = 0.032). Higher family income showed graded positive associations with Medical Expert (e.g., > $3,000/month: + 8.66 points, p = 0.008). Lower educational attainment predicted lower priorities for Professionalism, Leadership, and Scholarship. Rural respondents prioritized Medical Expert, Communication, and Leadership more than urban peers, whereas physician age and gender were not significant predictors. Embedding patient-derived signals into competency-based medical education-through curricular emphasis, assessment weights, and multisource feedback-may strengthen social accountability and alignment with community expectations. Future work should test longitudinal stability, cross-cultural measurement invariance, and higher-order or bifactor models to parse shared variance among closely related roles.
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.