ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring the diffusion, application, and scalability of entrustable professional activities beyond medical education: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
Competency-based education (CBE) is gaining prominence in post-secondary education due to its effectiveness in optimizing workforce readiness. However, assessing competence and workforce readiness presents a significant challenge. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) offer a promising solution by translating competencies into observable, entrustable tasks. While EPAs have been widely adopted in clinical training, their application in non-clinical educational contexts remains minimal. Guided by Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory, this scoping review aims to map the diffusion of EPAs beyond medical education and examine their scalability to non-clinical educational contexts, where real-world practice errors may undermine system integrity, educational outcomes, or public trust. This review will progress through five stages following Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Searches will be conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar. The research question is: "How have EPAs been adapted, developed and implemented outside of medical education, and what factors influence their adoption in non-clinical educational contexts?" The search will include studies that describe, evaluate, or reflect on the adaptation, development, or implementation of EPAs outside medical education, and exclude studies that only propose, define, or discuss EPAs, focus on medical education, or are not published in English. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed first, followed by the full-text examination of relevant studies. Data will be extracted and summarized to highlight key findings. A two-reviewer protocol will ensure quality during screening and data extraction. The findings from this review may provide practical guidance for faculty, curriculum developers, institutional administration, industry partners, and accrediting or policy bodies involved in curriculum and assessment framework design. Further, the findings may inform the rationale for scaling EPA-based assessment frameworks to non-clinical educational contexts and offer recommendations to guide their adaptation, development, and implementation, addressing CBE assessment challenges and creating a replicable model for future non-clinical program development.
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.