ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Rigorous evaluation needed to advance coaching in the biomedical workforce.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers in the biomedical workforce face challenges in establishing their careers, with disproportionate effects for underrepresented groups. Coaching, a form of professional development commonly adopted outside of the biomedical sciences, may be a useful and effective way to help researchers as they start and advance in their careers. In this innovative intervention, coaches guide clients from various fields and specialties to maximize their work performance for a range of goals that are tailored to the client's needs. However, coaching is not yet a widely accepted or regularly utilized practice in academic medicine and research. Coaching may help advance researchers in their careers and reduce longstanding inequities in the scientific workforce. To ensure effectiveness, coaching programs should be evaluated longitudinally using a conceptual framework; however, such rigorous evaluation has been limited to date. The authors highlight the potential benefits of coaching and call for greater evaluation of such programs in the biomedical sciences using the Kirkpatrick Model and Social Cognitive Career Theory to inform a framework for the evaluation of biomedical coaching. Maximizing the effectiveness of coaching has important potential to reduce inequities in the biomedical workforce and ensure that science benefits the nation's population.
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.