ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
Public and Simulated Patient voice in the assessment of professionalism on healthcare degree programmes.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.