ArticleMedical education online2026
Training of trainers on medical education reforms: a prospective multicenter French survey among intensivists.
Article in Medical education online, 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
backgroundThe recent reform of the second cycle of medical education in France introduced competency-based medical education (CBME) with the incorporation of several pedagogical modalities into undergraduate training and assessment, including objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), simulation-based teaching (SBT), and clinical reasoning (CR) instruction throughout the academic year. While these tools are central to preparing competent practitioners, their effective implementation depends on adequately trained educators. We hypothesized that training would be insufficient, notably in the recently introduced pedagogical modalities.
methodsWe conducted a national, cross-sectional survey (June-September 2023) to assess the level and adequacy of training of board-certified physicians practicing in critical care and involved in undergraduate teaching. An anonymous online questionnaire collected demographic data, teaching frequency, training characteristics, perceived adequacy and usefulness of training, preparedness, and barriers. The responses were analyzed descriptively and comparatively.
resultsAmong the 151 eligible respondents (72% male, median age 41 years, 70% working in teaching hospitals, and 44% holding an academic position), lectures remained the most common teaching modality despite CBME implementation. Only 60% of the respondents reported involvement in OSCEs. Teachers' training rates across pedagogical modalities were low and heterogeneous: 32% for OSCEs, 30% for SBT, 29% for written assessment design, 24% for lectures, and 12% for CR. Training in the SBT was more often practical, longer in duration, and rated as more useful and adequate than training in other modalities. Overall, the respondents reported moderate preparedness and frequent teaching difficulties. Prior training was associated with higher perceived preparedness and fewer difficulties when teaching students. Lack of dedicated time was the most frequently reported barrier to training (69%).
conclusionThis national survey revealed insufficient and heterogeneous training of intensivist educators in all pedagogical modalities of the undergraduate curriculum. Trainers report limited preparedness and frequent challenges. Standardized, accessible, and time-protected faculty development programs are urgently needed to support CBME 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.