ArticleInternational journal of medical education2026
Developing a self-determination theory-informed coaching framework for the transition to residency.
Article in International journal of 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and content-validate a consensus-based, Self-Determination Theory (SDT)-informed single-session coaching framework for the transition from medical school to residency (TTR). Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi study with 13 medical educators from 11 U.S. medical schools, purposively sampled for diversity of geography, institutional type, and coaching infrastructure. Eligibility required experience coaching in medical education. Using a nominal group technique, panelists generated 125 prompts and 12 skills across the coaching arc (opening, exploring, planning, closing). Duplicates were consolidated by consensus rules. In Round 1, panelists rated items on a 1-10 scale; consensus was >80% rating 9-10. In Rounds 2-3, binary yes/no voting determined inclusion or exclusion. Quantitative analysis included medians, interquartile ranges, and Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) for Round 1. Qualitative comments were analyzed with rapid content analysis to guide revisions. Results: All panelists completed each round (100% retention). In Round 1, 17 questions and 2 skills met consensus (median = 9, IQR 0-1; W = 0.78). Round 2 retained 2 questions and 1 skill, and excluded 62 items. Round 3 added 6 questions and 1 skill, yielding a final framework of 25 prompts and 4 skills. Prompts were distributed across phases (opening 5, exploring 9, planning 7, closing 4) and mapped to SDT needs (autonomy 9, competence 8, relatedness 8). Panelists affirmed clarity, feasibility, and acceptability for non-coach faculty. Conclusions: This consensus-derived framework provides a pragmatic, SDT-grounded tool for coaching at the TTR. Future studies should evaluate feasibility, fidelity, and learner outcomes.
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.