Observational studyInternational journal of medical education2026
An international, cross-sectional comparative study of general practice curricula in medical school programmes.
Observational study in International journal of medical education, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To describe and compare how undergraduate general practice (GP) is taught across medical school programmes in selected high-income countries, to inform curriculum redesign at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Methods: International observational cross sectional comparative study. Study participants were academic leads responsible for undergraduate general practice curricula in medical schools in Australia, England, Ireland, Canada, Norway, Iceland. Forty-four medical schools. Pragmatic purposive sampling to maximise diversity in geography, institutional age, programme structure, rural-urban context, student intake size. Single semi-structured interviews conducted April to November 2024, face-to-face or by videoconference. Interviews audio recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and supported by field notes. Data analysed using EPIC GP, modified SPICES derived framework examining electives, problem-based learning, curriculum integration, community based exposure, GP focused university teaching, and interprofessional education. Programmes coded and scored using a structured consensus process. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical cluster analysis used to identify patterns. Results: Marked variation observed in the organisation and visibility of general practice. Three curriculum typologies identified: hospital focused programmes with limited GP exposure; GP focused programmes with integrated, GP-led teaching; and community- or primary-health-care-focused programmes emphasising interprofessional education. Conclusions: This study provides an international comparative description of undergraduate GP teaching models. The findings demonstrate multiple approaches to embedding general practice beyond traditional block placements. Medical schools facing placement constraints may consider earlier GP engagement, increased GP led campus teaching, and selective use of simulation or digital learning. Further studies should examine educational and workforce outcomes.
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.