ArticleBMC medical education2026
PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) study: a novel online initiative approach to professionalism education.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedical education must ensure medical students graduate with the appropriate values, attitudes, and behaviours that allow them to work collaboratively with patients and families from a range of diverse cultural backgrounds. The PROfessionalism in Partnership for Education Research (PROPER) study aimed to assess the impact of an online educational intervention on medical professionalism for undergraduate medical students in two jurisdictions, focusing on behaviours and cultural sensitivity.
methodsThe PROPER study employed a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods design with intervention and control groups formed by participants self-selection. underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the intervention comprised four online workshops, using scenario analyses and reflective practices, addressing confidentiality, raising concerns, self-care, and cultural awareness. Quantitative survey data were collected at three time points: pre-workshop, immediate post workshop (short-term) and three months follow-up and qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions (FGDs). Quantitative analyses included paired and independent t-tests, while qualitative data were analysed thematically.
resultsForty-one participants (intervention = 31, control = 10) were included. The most notable change was observed in perceived behaviour control for self-care, which significantly improved from pre- to post-workshop (P < 0.05). For other constructs, improvements were observed but did not reach statistical significance. Other TPB items showed similar directions of change, where decreases or no improvements were observed. FGDs (n = 5, 24 participants) analysis identified four key themes across the combined workshops: perspective enhancement, enabling self, dialogic reflection, and strengthening axiology. These themes highlighted evidence in increased self-awareness, confidence, and the early development of professional values among participants. DISCUSSION: Despite limited statistical evidence, qualitative insights suggest PROPER intervention may be a promising model for online undergraduate professionalism education, combining a structured programme and reflection to enhance collaboration and cultural competence. Challenges such hierarchical norms, structural barriers and participants’ relative lack of clinical experience were perceived to limit long-term behaviour change. More evidence is needed in this area, focusing on incorporating experiential learning and addressing contextual barriers at a larger sample size to sustain professionalism behaviour.
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.