ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2026
Educational Impact of Generalist-Specialist Collaborative Outpatient Training for Medical Students: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of general and family 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the recognized benefits of specialty outpatient training for medical students, such settings present educational challenges. To address these, our university incorporated generalist support into specialty outpatient education. The present study aimed to explore what medical students learned from this program. Methods: Fifth- and sixth-year medical students who selected orthopedics or cardiology for their clinical clerkships were enrolled. During training at specialty outpatient clinics, the students conducted preliminary interviews with new patients under generalist supervision and received immediate feedback from the generalists. They then presented the cases to specialists and observed the subsequent examinations, receiving additional feedback. Afterward, they completed a reflection sheet. Text data from the reflections were analyzed thematically using open coding. Results: Sixty-four medical students participated. Four categories were generated based on learning from generalists: Efficient information gathering through the synergistic use of open and closed questions; understanding the psychosocial background of the patient and their family through the interpretive model; communication skills to build rapport with the patient; and awareness of the difficulty and importance of balancing patient interviews and chart documentation. From orthopedic specialists, two categories emerged: Proactive approaches emphasizing interviewing and physical examination rather than relying solely on referrals, and insights gained from actual clinical examinations and consideration for patients. From cardiology specialists, two categories were generated: Proactive interviewing and professional perspectives independent of referrals; and explanations that foster patient understanding and co-creation of treatment plans. Conclusion: Medical students gained distinct learning experiences from generalists and specialists through generalist-supported outpatient 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.