ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Conceptualising equity in basic medical education accreditation standards: A qualitative study of expert perspectives.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
Objectives: Accreditation systems are crucial in shaping medical education programs globally; however, concerns exist regarding the equitable application of standards across diverse contexts. This study explored expert perspectives on the conceptualisation of equity in basic medical education accreditation standards. Methodology: This study employed a qualitative theory-informed analysis design, conducted from January 2024 to April 2025. One-to-one interviews were conducted with 14 experts from various geographical locations, all of whom were involved in accreditation as researchers, surveyors, or members of national or international accrediting bodies. The data were analysed using thematic analysis guided by Aristotle's theory of equity. Results: Experts emphasised the need for context-responsive standards that maintain quality while allowing flexibility in implementation. Five key themes emerged: 1) equity or equality: what should be preferred; 2) quality over quantity and contextualisation; 3) equity is not lowering the standards 4) equity is flexibility in interpreting the standards and 5) striking balance between equity and equality: the way forward. Conclusions: By incorporating equity principles, accreditors can foster inclusive excellence across diverse medical education landscapes by embracing flexibility (equity to achieve equality), contextualisation, systematic surveyor training, and collaborative improvement without compromising the quality of 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.