Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41870783›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026

Education note: cultivating assessment and feedback for learning in our training hospital.

Rebecca Day, Louise Beckingsale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Rebecca DayHealth New Zealand, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2795-2554
Louise BeckingsaleUniversity of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. louise.beckingsale@otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3463-467X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-value feedback is essential for the successful development of medical physics trainees (registrars) as they complete their clinical training. In this education note, we present an overview of a small education intervention we implemented in our hospital to encourage feedback conversations, one of the principles of high-value feedback. Our intervention was based on the concepts of 'assessment for learning' and 'programmatic assessment'. This intervention encourages registrars to take ownership of the feedback process associated with each learning outcome assessment. Registrars are encouraged to complete and document a self-assessment of their performance, before seeking feedback from their trainer. We modified an assessment template to support this process. This new approach appears to have resulted in higher quality feedback conversations between registrars and trainers. Additionally, trainers have benefited from the registrars completing the majority of the assessment template, thus reducing their workload. Whilst this approach has increased the workload for registrars, we believe this has benefits for their learning. We hope other centres can learn from our experience and may consider how they can adopt a similar process for their setting.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementFeedbackHospitalsLearningHumansAssessmentEducationFeedbackProgrammatic assessmentRadiotherapyTraining

Identifiers

PMID41870783
PMCPMC13375686

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.