Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42799452›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

Why Controlling Teaching Persists in Medical Education: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective.

Adam Neufeld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 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

1 author.

Adam NeufeldDepartment of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2848-8100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autonomy-supportive teaching is widely promoted in medical education for its benefits to learner motivation and well-being. Yet many learners continue to experience clinical education as controlling, even in environments that explicitly endorse learner-centred values. This persistent gap suggests that barriers to autonomy-supportive practice extend beyond lack of knowledge or skill. This paper offers a theory-informed analysis of why psychologically controlling teaching persists in high-stakes clinical learning environments. Using Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as its organizing framework and drawing on complementary perspectives from psychological reactance, stress and coping, motivating styles, and medical education systems, the paper advances four interconnected arguments. Controlling teaching may emerge when educators experience pressure, threatened agency, responsibility, and uncertainty; be reinforced when authority and instructional structure are mistaken for psychological control; be legitimized through professional norms that associate control with competence; and be reproduced through assessment, administrative, and curricular systems. Its persistence is understandable because controlling approaches often produce the immediate outcomes educators seek-compliance, efficiency, predictability, and reduced uncertainty-even while carrying longer-term motivational costs. Control is therefore conceptualized not simply as an individual pedagogical failure, but as a downstream behavioural expression of pressure travelling through educational systems. By making these mechanisms visible, the paper provides a conceptual foundation for developing autonomy-supportive practices that remain viable under pressure and offers practical implications for educators, faculty development, and educational systems.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalPersonal AutonomyProfessional AutonomyTeachingHumansMotivation

Identifiers

PMID42799452
PMCPMC13614245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.