ReviewJournal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa2026
An exploratory evaluation of the acceptability of revised physician examinations in South Africa initiated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Review in Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study explored the acceptability of the decentralised assessment of clinical competency (AOCC) and digital structured oral examination (SOE), introduced in South Africa (SA) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with a view to informing their potential continuation and refinement in post-pandemic contexts. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted with candidates and examiners from SA training centres who participated in the AOCC and SOE in 2020-2021. Quantitative data explored perceptions regarding the credibility of the revised formats. For deeper insights, focus group discussions were held. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Forty candidates completed the questionnaires with at least one representative from each SA training centre. Twelve examiners responded to the AOCC and 13 to the SOE questionnaires. Both groups viewed the revised formats broadly positively, highlighting the AOCC's fairness, relevance and acceptability. Analysis highlighted advantages such as logistical benefits, and challenges, including the need for standardisation of registrar training. The SOE was endorsed by more than 70% of participants for its standardisation, objectivity and breadth of content coverage. Both groups expressed concerns about limited examiner-candidate interaction, while candidates reported uncertainty regarding the depth of responses required. Conclusion: The revised formats were broadly acceptable and perceived as valid alternatives to the previous format of the examination. These findings support the continuation of hybrid, decentralised formats for future assessments. Contribution: This study provides insight into the benefits and drawbacks of the amended Fellowship of the College of Physicians (SA) examination format, offering guidance for future reforms in medical assessment in SA and comparable resource-constrained contexts.
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.