ArticleBMJ open2026
Organizational learning models in continuing health education: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCitizens depend on high-quality healthcare; however, significant disparities in quality persist among healthcare organisations. Healthcare services are complex organisations, making it essential to employ knowledge management as a strategic resource. This develops competent professionals capable of performing tasks effectively, thereby directly impacting the quality of care. Within this framework, organisational learning (OL) emerges as a key concept, referring to an institution's ability to continuously reshape its knowledge over time without losing its organisational memory, thus fostering change and constant adaptation.
aimTo identify and map OL models within healthcare environments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Research articles, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, observational studies or any other research relevant to the topic will be included. There will be no language or time restrictions in the selection of studies. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The search will be conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane and grey literature (Google Scholar and OpenGrey.eu). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors (MTdA, ABBG and BSL) will independently screen the search results using titles and abstracts. Duplicate studies will be excluded. The same authors will then review the full texts to determine whether the studies meet the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by two other reviewers (KSdM and RLAdV). Finally, the selection process will be summarised in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK OSF: https://DOI.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GH6JZ.
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.