ArticleBMC medical education2026
Global research agenda for health professionals education: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
Abstract
backgroundHealth professionals’ education (HPE) research provides evidence to improve the training of healthcare professionals. Despite several national studies setting agendas for HPE research, the lack of a consolidated synthesis limits global benchmarking, policy decisions, funding allocation, and global collaboration. This scoping review aims to synthesize a consolidated agenda for HPE research based on priorities set across countries and regions.
methodsFollowing Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across various databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC) for English-language studies published between 2000 and 2025 using keywords related to “health professionals education” and “research agenda”. Eligible studies were those that explicitly addressed the HPE research agenda. Two independent reviewers (MM and AS) screened records using Rayyan, resolving discrepancies through consensus. The research agenda themes were inductively coded and mapped.
resultsTwenty-three eligible studies were included in the final synthesis. The studies were from North America (US, n = 5), Europe (UK, n = 2; Ireland, n = 1), Pacific and East Asia (Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, n = 1 each), MENA and South Asia (Iran, n = 4; EMR and Pakistan, n = 1 each), and Sub-Saharan Africa (Sudan and SSA, n = 1 each) and multiregional (n = 3). The universal HPE research agendas synthesized focused substantially on teaching, curriculum, assessment, and professionalism strategies. Regional mapping revealed unique agendas from North America (Inclusivity and professional skills), Europe (teamwork and communication), Pacific and East Asia (community involvement), MENA and South Asia (management, research, and technology), and Sub-Saharan Africa (economics and technology).
conclusionsThis review provides the first consolidated global synthesis of the HPE research agenda. Core pedagogical research themes were predominantly represented across global regions, notably teaching, curriculum, assessment, and professionalism. Emerging distinct regional agendas focus on inclusivity, professional skills, interprofessional collaboration, community engagement, management, research, and technology. This global synthesis provides a benchmark for aligning future research, funding, and educational reforms in HPE 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.