ArticleAEM education and training2026
From Talk to Text: Improving Feedback Concordance With a Simple Intervention.
Article in AEM education and training, 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.
- From Talk to Text: Improving Feedback Concordance With a Simple Intervention.AEM education and training · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-quality written feedback is critical to learner development. Actionable feedback is essential in emergency medicine (EM), where students do not consistently rotate with the same supervisor. Medical students frequently report dissatisfaction with feedback due to inadequate quantity, vagueness, and discordance between verbal and written elements. Educational scripts, sometimes referred to as "scaffolds", prompt people to respond in a desired manner and show potential as an intervention to encourage clinical feedback. Methods: We incorporated a "stop and think" verification question in medical student assessments. Supervisors answered yes or no to the statement: "I discussed this feedback with the student." We hypothesized this would improve students' assessment of feedback quality and verbal-written feedback concordance. Outcomes include three feedback perception questions added to the end-of-clerkship student evaluations and qualitative analysis of the types of narrative feedback provided. We prospectively collected 8 months of assessment data ( Results: The percentage of students rating the quality of clerkship feedback as excellent or very good remained stable (62% vs. 74%, Conclusions: A verification question added to student assessment forms can positively impact student perceptions of verbal-written feedback concordance without altering the content of feedback provided, including actionability. This easy-to-implement strategy provides one mechanism to encourage supervisors to provide more feedback to trainees.
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.