ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
Professional identity formation (PIF) - What has NKLM 2.0 to say about it? A workshop report.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2026. 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.
- Professional Identity Formation - important, complex, and dynamic.GMS journal for medical education · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Medical education should support the development of a professional identity. However, it is still unclear what exactly is meant by professional identity formation (PIF), how it proceeds, and how it can be specifically supported. Against this background, this workshop report describes an attempt by a group of experts to identify and evaluate learning objectives in NKLM 2.0 that could be relevant to PIF. The aims of this project were, on the one hand, to determine the extent to which PIF has been incorporated into the NKLM and, on the other hand, to analyze how PIF can be understood on the basis of PIF related learning objectives. Methodology: In a multi-stage, iterative process, a subgroup (N=6) of the GMA Committee on Professional Identity Formation identified PIF-relevant learning objectives in the NKLM and derived fundamental topics and distinctions from them. Results: Basically, a categorization into essential and associated learning objectives emerged, although the assessments of the participants regarding the assignment to the categories varied greatly. 130 learning objectives were marked and weighted as essential, 14 of which were classified as particularly relevant. The result was a weighted list of essential and associated learning objectives for the topic of PIF, as well as two fundamental, summarizing learning objectives in the areas of "role understanding" and "self-reflection". Discussion: The selection and evaluation of learning objectives within the group were often heterogeneous. This illustrates that the topic of PIF has been vaguely defined to date and is obviously understood differently. In order to explicitly map PIF in the NKLM, the underlying learning objectives would have to be formulated more precisely. In addition, a theory-based definition of PIF would be helpful in order to revise the essential learning objectives and specify the boundaries of the topic.
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.