ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Clinical Feedback as a Relational and Organisational Process: A Qualitative Study of Students' Experiences in Operating Room Environment.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical feedback is central to workplace learning in operating room education. While clinical feedback has been conceptualised as relational and context-dependent, less is known about how Operating Room Technology students perceive and experience it within the operating room learning environment. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 17 Operating Room Technology students recruited through maximum variation purposive sampling from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Data were collected between November 2025 and March 2026 and analysed using Graneheim and Lundman's inductive content analysis. Trustworthiness was addressed using Lincoln and Guba's criteria. Results: Five themes comprising 13 subcategories were identified: structural and executive framework of clinical feedback; perceived consequences of clinical feedback quality; harmful feedback practices and barriers; interaction and professionalism in feedback; and individual and professional competencies of instructors in feedback. Students described clinical feedback as most valuable when it was structured, timely, respectful, and dialogic, and perceived it as contributing to confidence, engagement, and professional identity. Delayed, vague, or humiliating clinical feedback was perceived to undermine confidence and psychological safety. Divergent accounts highlighted tensions between immediate intra-operative clinical feedback and workflow demands, as well as circumstances in which public safety-critical corrections were perceived as necessary. Conclusions: The findings suggest that clinical feedback in Operating Room Technology education is a multidimensional process perceived to be shaped by structural, relational, organisational, and educator-related factors. Rather than proposing a new conceptualisation, this study provides a context-specific understanding of how established clinical feedback principles are perceived and negotiated within the operating room learning environment. Strengthening educator capabilities, embedding structured clinical feedback approaches, and fostering psychologically safe learning environments may strengthen clinical education in Operating Room Technology programmes.
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.