ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2026
Faculty Perceptions of Individualized Learning Plans in Medical Education.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Individualized learning plans (ILPs) enable learners to establish and track their personal educational goals, aiding their progression as master adaptive learners. Despite their significance, little research focuses on the content of ILPs. Our study aimed to detail the perceived content and implementation of ILPs within various residency and fellowship specialties across a large multihospital system. Methods: We conducted an observational cross-sectional survey among faculty between July 27 and August 27, 2024. The survey was developed Results: The survey had a response rate of 49.6% (112/226), with 60.7% (68/112) of respondents having an active role in ILP development and monitoring. Of those involved with ILPs, 60.3% (41/68) of responding faculty belonged to diagnostic specialties and 39.7% (27/68) to procedural specialties. Our analysis found no significant differences in the frequency of ILP reviews among different specialties. Procedural specialties placed a greater emphasis on career planning ( Conclusions: We identified notable differences in the faculty perceptions of ILP content between procedural and diagnostic specialties. These insights may help guide resource allocation tailored to the specific needs of procedural and diagnostic program faculty.
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.