ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Glocalizing the theory of learning: a pluriversal perspective on health professions education.
Article in Frontiers in 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glocalization has emerged as the preferred solution in health professions education (HPE) to the tension between globally recognized standards and local training practices. Its structure, however, is hub-and-spoke: theory is developed at a Western center, adaptation handled at the periphery. Curricula, accreditation, and assessment are adapted locally; learning theories are treated as universal and unchanging. This Perspective contends that the glocalization project remains incomplete and suggests how to finish it: by glocalizing the very theory of learning. Drawing on bibliometric evidence of concentrated knowledge production and thirty years of educational practice across four continents, I propose a pluriversal extension that integrates Islamic, Hindu, Confucian, Buddhist, and Ubuntu traditions as active sources of learning theory rather than as cultural contexts for imported ideas. To keep engagement rigorous rather than romantic, I outline a five-level comparison framework (vocabulary, phenomenon, mechanism, prescription, ontology), state its provenance and limits, and demonstrate its operation in worked examples and a complete supplementary application. The paper closes with theoretical and practical implications for curriculum, assessment, research capacity, and artificial intelligence, as well as an agenda for validating the framework.
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.