ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Optimising feedback provision and literacy in medical training: linking theory to practice.
Review 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feedback is a cornerstone of all competency-based medical education and training programmes, where learners receive feedback from preceptors on various aspects of clinical performance to attain desired outcomes. However, feedback processes are often suboptimal due to lack of training and expertise of the preceptors in effective feedback provision leading to ineffective feedback that is lacking in timeliness, substance, actionability or palatability. In addition, inadequate feedback literacy in terms of poor self-awareness, affective overlay or lack of motivation to change further limits receptivity to constructive criticisms. In this article, we provide an educational primer on optimising feedback in medical training from both perspectives of feedback provision and reception/literacy. Through a review of common barriers to feedback identified in medical education and practice, as well as pre-existing models of feedback, we developed a novel, practical "reflect-analyse-emote-support" (RAES) framework that could be used for giving feedback in medical training, which not only retains traditional principles and learner-centered structures of feedback, but also incorporates cognitive-behavioral strategies that help navigate natural intuitive, emotive resistance to constructive/negative feedback.
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.