ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Exploring feedback and feedforward in dental education using a followership model.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
Objectives: The study aimed to explore the feedback and feedforward quality in the clinical setting and the usability of a followership model as a framework to analyze and map students' peer feedback. Method: Feedback and feedforward from 59 fourth-year dental students' clinical portfolios were collected and analyzed using a combination of deductive coding and interpretative content analysis. The analysis was first organized into predefined code categories (specific and actionable, non-specific, confirmatory, description of what was done, and other comments). The comments provided to peers were clustered and analyzed in relation to Kelley's theoretical followership framework. Results: A total of 3,877 free-text comments were included in the analysis. Regardless of role, most comments were coded as specific and actionable ( Conclusion: The analysis of feedback and feedforward in relation to followership seems to be a valid conceptual model. We found that peer feedback was often confirmatory and could be improved by incorporating specific and actionable feedforward. The followership model was shown to be a useful tool for structuring and analyzing peer feedback and feedforward, and it will be used as a tool for learning and quality assessment in future longitudinal studies.
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.