Feedback Credibility in Healthcare Education: a Systematic Review and Synthesis.
Assessment
Believability
Evaluation
Feedback
Feedback credibility
Systematic review
Journal
Medical science educator
ISSN: 2156-8650
Titre abrégé: Med Sci Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101625548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
accepted:
19
11
2020
entrez:
30
8
2021
pubmed:
31
8
2021
medline:
31
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to systematically review and synthesize factors that influence learners' perceptions of credibility when feedback is provided by an authority figure in a healthcare environment. This study reviewed literature from medicine, psychology, and education using systematic review and qualitative synthesis methods. In a multi-step process, major electronic bibliographic databases were searched for relevant studies until October 2020. The search identified 9216 articles. A total of 134 abstracts underwent full-text review. Of these, 22 articles met inclusion criteria. The studies were heterogenous and the majority utilized a qualitative design with interviews and focus groups. A few studies employed mixed methodology ( As programs implement major educational change initiatives to create more formative assessment practices, feedback will become even more crucial. The four main themes identified are important factors that contribute to the perception of feedback credibility. While the factors are described independently, they may be viewed as interrelated and the association between these factors and feedback may be driven more by learning culture than each characteristic. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-020-01167-w.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34457934
doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01167-w
pii: 1167
pmc: PMC8368112
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
923-933Informations de copyright
© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Med Educ. 2013 Jun;47(6):585-94
pubmed: 23662876
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 1;9(1):e024425
pubmed: 30782734
Med Educ. 2012 Jun;46(6):593-603
pubmed: 22626051
Med Teach. 2013 Aug;35(8):e1396-402
pubmed: 23600668
Teach Learn Med. 2017 Apr-Jun;29(2):153-161
pubmed: 28001442
Med Educ. 2016 Sep;50(9):933-42
pubmed: 27562893
JAMA. 1995 Sep 6;274(9):700-5
pubmed: 7650822
JAMA. 1983 Aug 12;250(6):777-81
pubmed: 6876333
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Aug;13(3):275-88
pubmed: 17091339
Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):470-2
pubmed: 16147804
J Clin Nurs. 2017 Nov;26(21-22):3442-3456
pubmed: 28032385
Med Educ. 2011 Jun;45(6):636-47
pubmed: 21564201
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 11;14:76
pubmed: 24725268
Acad Med. 2020 Jul;95(7):1057-1065
pubmed: 32576764
Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Feb;85:104236
pubmed: 31751627
Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108
pubmed: 19490148
Acad Med. 2010 Jul;85(7):1212-20
pubmed: 20375832
Med Teach. 2006 Mar;28(2):117-28
pubmed: 16707292
J Grad Med Educ. 2018 Apr;10(2):185-191
pubmed: 29686758
Med Educ. 2014 Feb;48(2):189-203
pubmed: 24528401
Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):713-23
pubmed: 24909533
Med Teach. 2017 Jun;39(6):609-616
pubmed: 28598746
Acad Med. 2008 Oct;83(10 Suppl):S97-100
pubmed: 18820513
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):16-7
pubmed: 20078751
Med Educ. 2018 Mar;52(3):314-323
pubmed: 29205433
Perspect Med Educ. 2015 Dec;4(6):284-99
pubmed: 26621488
Med Educ. 2008 Feb;42(2):189-97
pubmed: 18230092
Med Educ. 2014 Apr;48(4):430-40
pubmed: 24606626
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Mar;17(1):15-26
pubmed: 21468778
Med Educ. 2012 Jul;46(7):711-21
pubmed: 22691150
Med Educ. 2012 Feb;46(2):192-200
pubmed: 22239333
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96
pubmed: 17251535
Perspect Med Educ. 2017 Aug;6(4):256-264
pubmed: 28577253
Med Teach. 2017 Oct;39(10):1065-1073
pubmed: 28741446
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):101-8
pubmed: 20078761