Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42622047›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of preventive medicine2026

The Family Physician Training Program in the World: A Scoping Review Protocol.

Fariba Ahmadi, Mostafa Amini-Rarani, Alireza Jabbari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of preventive 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fariba AhmadiStudent Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mostafa Amini-RaraniSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Alireza JabbariHealth Management and Economics Research Center, Isfahan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the emergence of family medicine in the world, different approaches to training family physicians have been utilized. However, there are no united criteria or processes defined for the field. Therefore, this study intends to gather and use the worldwide experience in training family physicians. Methods: This protocol uses the 2020 updated version of Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) scoping review and the PCC framework (population, concept, context). The study will review databases and use search engines and related websites by considering the entrance criteria. Resources will be entered into EndNote. The study will use PRISMA for the selection process and content analysis to analyze the studies. Results: As this is a protocol, no empirical data are presented. The anticipated findings will systematically map family physician training programs worldwide, summarizing extracted data via tables and narrative synthesis across key dimensions: admission criteria, curriculum, core competencies, training duration, teaching/assessment methods, accreditation standards, and career pathways. The synthesis will also highlight contextual variations, knowledge gaps, thematic convergences, and barriers across different health systems. The mapped evidence will inform policymakers on transferable models and contextual adaptations, while acknowledging limitations such as publication and language bias. Conclusions: It seems that the study results could help policymakers familiarize themselves with different dimensions of different methods of training family physicians in the world and create training plans adoptable by healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Family physicianprogramtrain

Identifiers

PMID42622047
PMCPMC13489572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.