ArticleCureus2026
Assessing the Perception of the Family Adoption Program Among Medical Students, Adopted Families, and Medical Faculty: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background The Family Adoption Program (FAP) is a community-oriented medical education initiative in which medical students adopt families to provide basic healthcare support while enhancing their clinical, communication, and observational skills. Understanding the perspectives of medical students, adopted families, and faculty members is essential for evaluating the program's educational and community impact and identifying areas for improvement. Methods A mixed-methods study was conducted among 220 participants, including 150 second-year medical students, 50 adopted family members, and 20 faculty members involved in the FAP. Quantitative data were collected from students using a structured 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire assessing perceived effectiveness, learning experiences, and challenges associated with the program. Qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interviews with faculty members and focus group discussions with adopted family members. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis framework. Results Most students reported that the FAP improved their communication skills (85.3%) and clinical understanding (81.3%), while 78.0% perceived enhanced confidence in community interaction and patient counseling. Faculty members emphasized the program's role in bridging theoretical learning with real-world healthcare exposure. Adopted families reported increased health awareness, improved healthcare-seeking behavior, and better understanding of preventive practices. Despite these benefits, students identified major challenges, including academic workload (72.0%), transportation difficulties (64.7%), and scheduling conflicts (61.3%). Families also expressed concerns related to communication barriers, trust-building, and difficulty adhering to medical advice. Qualitative analysis highlighted the need for improved orientation sessions, stronger faculty mentorship, structured follow-up mechanisms, and enhanced community engagement. Conclusion The FAP is an effective experiential learning strategy that strengthens medical students' clinical exposure, communication abilities, and understanding of community healthcare while simultaneously improving health awareness among adopted families. However, logistical barriers, academic burden, and communication challenges may limit optimal implementation. Strengthening institutional support, structured mentorship, and flexible scheduling can improve the long-term sustainability and educational impact of the program.
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.