ArticlePloS one2026
Feedback and feedforward methods in medical and higher health education: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundProgrammatic assessment (PA) in health professions education positions continuous feedback and feedforward as key mechanisms for competence development. Feedback focuses on prior performance, whereas feedforward provides future-oriented guidance that supports agency and self-regulated learning. Although their educational value is widely acknowledged, implementation remains challenging and often emphasises performance outcomes rather than action and reflection.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to address the research question: "How are feedback and feedforward methods operationalised within assessment situations in medical and higher health professions education? The ECLIPSE framework (Expectation, Client group, Location, Impact, Professionals, Service) guided question formulation and searches in Embase, ERIC and PubMed. Articles published from 2015 up to February 2026 were included. Data were synthesized using descriptive and thematic synthesis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.
resultsDatabase searches identified 3723 records. After deduplication and screening, 91 full texts were assessed, of which 14 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies involved medical students. Five methodological families were identified: expert feedback, self-feedback, peer feedback, video-based feedback, and feedforward. Expert and video-based approaches were consistently associated with performance gains, whereas self- and peer feedback supported reflection and learner agency but showed variable outcomes. Feedforward was rarely explicitly described, although several interventions incorporated forward-looking elements targeting performance.
conclusionCurrent assessment practices rely on a limited set of recurring methods, with feedforward, predominantly focused on performance, often remaining implicit. Making feedforward explicit and actionable within assessment cycles might strengthen competence development, promote learner agency, and support continuous improvement in PA context.
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.