ArticleBMC medical education2026
A qualitative study of evaluators of Canadian postgraduate medical education programs: challenges and recommendations.
Article in BMC 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Canada, postgraduate medical education has transitioned to Competence by Design, a form of competency-based medical education. Program evaluation can help us learn more about the efficiency and effectiveness of Competence by Design and the transition to it. While most Canadian postgraduate medical education programs conduct program evaluations to support improvement and accreditation, the quality of these evaluation activities is questionable. Program evaluation within these contexts is challenging due to limited time, a lack of knowledge of program evaluation, and limited resources. The purpose of this study is to investigate how evaluators support postgraduate medical education programs and how they can help build the capacity of these programs to conduct evaluations and utilize the findings.
methodsUsing a qualitative study design, we employed purposeful sampling to interview evaluators with knowledge and experience in evaluating postgraduate medical education programs. We conducted interviews with 12 evaluators. We thematically coded the data using a deductive and inductive process.
resultsEvaluators can support postgraduate medical education programs as temporary and external consultants or as internal evaluation experts employed by the universities where the programs reside. Evaluators can help programs build their capacities to do program evaluation and use the findings by suggesting evaluation approaches and methods, leveraging existing data, interpreting the findings, encouraging programs to share conclusions, co-developing a manageable follow-up plan, and establishing quality assurance that supports accreditation.
conclusionsThis study presents empirical research on program evaluation in medical education, as well as information for evaluators embarking on evaluations of medical education programs. While this study confirmed that some programs leverage qualified evaluators, the limited internal evaluation units within Canadian medical education universities are concerning. If the potential of evaluation is to be realized and sustainable in medical education, allocating adequate resources is essential. Selecting the appropriate evaluation type, questions, and approaches can support program directors and evaluators in continuing to transform medical education.
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.