Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42885376›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025

Public and Simulated Patient voice in the assessment of professionalism on healthcare degree programmes.

Jonathan D T Ward, Jose W Jr S Cortezano, Jacob H Chizzo, Katharine Heathcock, Katharine Weetman, Connie M Wiskin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. 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

6 authors.

Jonathan D T WardInteractive Studies Unit, University of Birmingham College of Medicine and Health, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4466-8443
Jose W Jr S CortezanoUniversity of Birmingham School of Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Jacob H ChizzoInteractive Studies Unit, University of Birmingham College of Medicine and Health, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Katharine HeathcockInteractive Studies Unit, University of Birmingham College of Medicine and Health, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Katharine WeetmanInteractive Studies Unit, University of Birmingham College of Medicine and Health, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0377-3933
Connie M WiskinInteractive Studies Unit, University of Birmingham College of Medicine and Health, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In 2019, an International Working Group on the Assessment of Professionalism (IWGAP) identified a lack of patient voice in the literature relating to assessment of professionalism. This study sought to gather public perspectives on professionalism and associated methods for assessment. Methods: A mixed-method study was conducted to understand public perceptions of healthcare student professionalism and how these perceptions might inform future assessment practices. One hundred street surveys with members of the public were analysed and results were used as stimuli during two focus groups with simulated patients (SPs). Focus-group data were analysed in an iterative process to identify themes. Results: While 97% of survey respondents were in favour of assessing professionalism for undergraduate healthcare students, preferences for formal or informal assessments varied. 'Benevolence' and 'competence' were considered key components of professionalism, with 'Showing respect for patients and colleagues' ranked as the most important aspect. Seven focus-group themes were identified: presentation, attitudes and values, patient relationship and centredness, trustworthiness, timekeeping, knowledge, and formality and mode of assessment. Conclusions: While the public recognises the need to assess professionalism, healthcare programmes should re-assess the focus of examinations, which might prioritise aspects of professionalism deemed less important by patients.

Indexed as

AssessmentClinical CommunicationMedical EducationProfessionalismPublic perceptionsSimulated PatientsUndergraduate healthcare

Identifiers

PMID42885376
PMCPMC13662377

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.