ArticleF1000Research2026
Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol.
Article in F1000Research, 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
Introduction: Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education are increasingly implemented to support students' professional and personal development. Yet, the design and purpose of these programmes vary significantly across different institutions. This integrative review will systematically synthesise the literature on coaching programmes, focusing on structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies. Methods and analysis: A comprehensive literature review will be conducted using Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review methodology. The search strategy includes the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete, supplemented by a hand search. Two reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records, and study selection will be documented in a PRISMA flowchart. Data will be extracted from eligible full texts on descriptive metadata, structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies of the described coaching programmes. The quality of the included studies will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for empirical studies and the JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion for non-empirical studies. Extracted data will be analysed descriptively and thematically and integrated into a framework that can serve future programme development. Ethics and dissemination: As this review is based exclusively on secondary data, no ethical approval is required. The results of the review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an academic conference.Open Science Framework registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/UTHJC.
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.