Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41555879›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2025

Learner-Level Psychological Factors Impact Feedback Recipience in Medical Education.

Lynnea M Mills, Pooja Lalchandani, Olle Ten Cate, Christy Boscardin, Patricia S O'Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lynnea M MillsDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6128-747X
Pooja LalchandaniDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Olle Ten CateDepartment of Medical Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Christy BoscardinDepartments of Anesthesia and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Patricia S O'SullivanDepartments of Medicine and Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Gaps exist in the literature concerning psychological factors impacting medical learners' receptivity to feedback. Learners' orientation toward feedback and their emotions during feedback are likely to influence their recall of feedback and therefore their ability to act upon it. Better understanding these constructs and relationships could improve feedback processes. Materials and Methods: We conducted a feedback simulation study with a pre-simulation measure of feedback orientation (FO), an in-simulation measure of emotions experienced, and a post-simulation measure of recall. Participants were third- and fourth-year medical students at one US medical school. Results: Twenty-two students participated. FO scores were higher than in prior work in medical education. Emotions during feedback were mixed but mostly positively valenced and mostly activating. Students recalled, on average, 0.77 of 2 specific reinforcing feedback points and 1.0 of 2 constructive points. There were small correlations among the constructs; specifically, positive emotional valence was slightly negatively correlated with recall. Conclusions: FO and emotion during feedback are two factors that may influence learners' retention of feedback. The results indicate these factors are complex and related, requiring further studies. Additionally, our results call for work to expand on and improve psychological measurement tools when used with medical learners.

Indexed as

EmotionFeedbackFeedback orientationFeedback retention

Identifiers

PMID41555879
PMCPMC12812111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.