ArticleBMC medical education2026
Building a relevant biomedical graduate program: from review to reform.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgram evaluation is critical for ensuring that graduate programs remain responsive, effective, and aligned with the evolving needs of students, faculty, and the broader scientific community. At a major Canadian institution, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive evaluation to assess how well our program meets stakeholder needs and to identify curricular gaps and actionable recommendations across our biomedical and clinical research graduate programs.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used, guided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Program Evaluation Framework. Data were collected through surveys, interviews, and a focus group, which included a combination of students, alumni, supervisors, and/or faculty members. The evaluation assessed the curriculum structure, program strengths, and areas for improvements.
resultsThe findings, when considered together, demonstrated that the student learning experience is shaped by numerous factors beyond course content. Synthesis of the results produced 26 recommendations in three main categories of factors, including course content and experiences, infrastructure and support, and faculty and supervisor engagement. In addition, we identified factors that enabled successful program evaluation, including overt institutional support of the evaluation process including commitment to establishment of a recurring cycle of implementation that aligned with other existing quality assurance processes, and establishment of formal activities to convert findings to actionable initiatives and to monitor progress for each.
conclusionThis evaluation demonstrated how the CDC Program Evaluation Framework can be used to enable a systematic, data-driven process that translated stakeholder feedback into actionable recommendations to support meaningful program refinements in response to identified needs regarding program modernization designed to better meet new realities for graduate students. Ongoing evaluation will be essential to monitor the impact of implemented changes and ensure alignment between graduate biomedical education and evolving scientific and workforce needs.
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.