ReviewActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Leadership Education for Doctors-A Scoping Review.
Review in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical leadership is essential for patient safety and effective healthcare delivery. While leadership training is increasingly integrated into medical education, there is no consensus on how to define, teach, or evaluate these skills. This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature on medical clinical leadership training and identify gaps.
methodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across five major databases. Eligible studies were original studies involving any interventions with the purpose of improving leadership skills of participants, where most participants were doctors or medical students. Studies were screened and selected by multiple reviewers, and data were charted using a tool constructed for this study. Synthesis and thematic analysis were conducted with support from Datalab at the Library of Copenhagen University.
resultsSixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Out of these, 47 employed descriptive pre/post designs. Clinical leadership was defined explicitly by 15 studies, though a thematic analysis identified nine shared elements, including communication, emotional intelligence, and patient safety. Teaching methods varied, with simulations and lectures being most common. Out of 62 studies, 36 relied on self-assessment for evaluation and satisfaction surveys, with limited long-term or objective outcome measures. Evaluation methods of 56 studies fell within Kirkpatrick's levels 1 and 2, focusing on reaction and learning, rather than behavior- or long-term changes.
conclusionClinical leadership education is a growing but fragmented field. A clearer definition of clinical leadership, teaching methods, and evaluation tools are needed to improve future training programs and assess their effectiveness. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This scoping review summarizes the current literature regarding education on clinical leadership skills. More specifically the authors identified nine themes of clinical leadership by using a thematic analysis method, and also reported on different teaching and assessment methods. By assessing altogether 62 studies, concerning mainly doctors and medical students as learners, they identified a need for defining clinical leadership, and the teaching and evaluation methods more clearly.
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.