ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Re-defining professionalism in medicine in an era of rapid change: a modified Delphi study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Future of Resident Unionization.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical professionalism has traditionally been defined by core standards for practitioners, yet consensus on its defining elements remains limited. Shifts in society, medical practice, and trainee perspectives have influenced how professionalism is understood and applied. This study aimed to establish a contemporary, consensus-based framework for medical educators and learners. Methods: Using a modified Delphi approach, 39 medical education experts from eight U.S. medical schools participated in three survey rounds and one in-person session. Participants rated 51 behaviorally-based items categorized under four domains: commitments to patients, colleagues, institutions/society, and self. Items were rated "essential," "important but not essential," or "not important," with consensus defined as 70% agreement. Results: Consensus was reached on 24 "essential" elements emphasizing patient-centered care, ethical practice, equitable care, communication, and cultural humility. Participants highlighted the importance of a shared framework while recognizing the risks of bias and the need for contextual sensitivity. Items related to physician self-sacrifice, attire, and social justice failed to reach consensus, reflecting concerns about burnout, subjectivity, and scope. Emphasis was placed on fostering professionalism through dialog, reflection, and context-aware evaluation. Conclusion: The resulting framework captures evolving perspectives on professionalism, offering educators practical, adaptable guidance for teaching, reflection, and assessment across diverse educational settings.
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.