ArticleThe clinical teacher2026
Longitudinal Clinical Debrief in an Undergraduate Medical Programme.
Article in The clinical teacher, 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
backgroundExplicit teaching of clinical reasoning to medical students can be difficult to achieve, though may be facilitated through structured clinical debrief sessions supporting student discussions of case studies and placement experiences. This study aimed to understand student perceptions of the value of clinical debrief throughout their curriculum. APPROACH: A scaffolded series of clinical debrief sessions were incorporated into Years 1, 3 and 5 of a 5-year UK undergraduate medical programme. Sessions are increasingly complex across year-levels and continuously improved across academic years according to student feedback. Each session receives student feedback through Likert-scale and open-ended questions on the session and their facilitating tutor, which were consolidated and analysed using descriptive statistics and AI-assisted conceptual content analysis. EVALUATION: From over 8000 responses across the three year-levels and nine academic years, clinical debrief was positively viewed across all cohorts, with increasing perceived value for Year 3 students, though some decrease in perceptions for Year 5 students. Earlier year students emphasised the value for their communication and clinical reasoning skills, while later year students valued the ethical and medico-legal skill development and preparing for practice as a doctor. Tutors across all year levels were perceived highly for their contributions to an inclusive and effective learning environment and reducing professional isolation. IMPLICATIONS: Scaffolded clinical debrief is positively viewed by undergraduate medical students across year levels, with perceived contributions to skill development influenced by year level. Development and implementation of clinical debrief require design aligning to student experiences and expectations, with effective tutor training.
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.