SynthesisPerspectives on medical education2026
Self-Directed Learning in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Competency-Based Medical Education and the Evolving Role of Anatomical Sciences in Undergraduate Medical Education.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Impact of a research methodology course emphasizing critical appraisal skills on dental students' clinical decision-making self-efficacy: a single-arm educational intervention.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Residents' Experiences with Personalized Learning in Postgraduate Training; Going Beyond Competency Based Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Personalized Learning in Health Professions Education: A Comprehensive Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of self-directed learning (SDL) in health professions education (HPE), examining its impact on knowledge, clinical performance, and behavioral outcomes. It investigates whether core SDL components influence educational outcomes, updating and extending the foundational work of Murad et al. (2010). Methods: We searched CINAHL, Embase, OVID Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (2009-2023) for comparative studies evaluating SDL interventions in HPE. From 6,786 screened articles, 125 studies met inclusion criteria, with 48 eligible for meta-analysis. We conducted a three-level random-effects meta-analysis and moderator analyses on profession, outcome type, SDL modality, and facilitator role. Five independent reviewers conducted screening and extraction, resolving discrepancies via consensus. Results: The meta-analysis incorporated 74 effect sizes from 48 studies, revealing a small-to-moderate overall effect (Cohen's d = 0.34, 95% CI 0.04, 0.64) with significant heterogeneity (I Conclusions: This updated meta-analysis reaffirms that SDL reliably enhances knowledge acquisition but suggests that it may yield only modest gains in clinical skills and behaviors. The wide variability in how SDL is defined and reported underscores the need for a consensus definition of SDL.
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.