CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 370Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationE-Learning and COVID-19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 147 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Challenges and opportunities for educating health professionals after the COVID-19 pandemic

Open access
Frenk, Julio, Chen, Lincoln C, Chandran, Latha, Groff, Elizabeth O H, King, Roderick, Meleis, Afaf, Fineberg, Harvey V·2022·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02092-xPMC PMC9612849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The education of health professionals substantially changed before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2010 Lancet Commission examined the 100-year history of health-professional education, beginning with the 1910 Flexner report. Since the publication of the Lancet Commission, several transformative developments have happened, including in competency-based education, interprofessional education, and the large-scale application of information technology to education. Although the COVID-19 pandemic did not initiate these developments, it increased their implementation, and they are likely to have a long-term effect on health-professional education. They converge with other societal changes, such as globalisation of health care and increasing concerns of health disparities across the world, that were exacerbated by the pandemic. In this Health Policy, we list institutional and instructional reforms to assess what has happened to health-professional education since the publication of the Lancet Commission and how the COVID-19 pandemic altered the education process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02092-x

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 149 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–370 of 370

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Frenk, J., Chen, L. C., Chandran, L., Groff, E. O. H., King, R., Meleis, A., & Fineberg, H. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Chandran, Latha
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
400
Issue
10362
Pages
1539-1556
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02092-x
PMC
PMC9612849
OpenAlex
W4307420006
Cited by
369
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 2
FWCI
14.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › E-Learning and COVID-19
Keywords
health professions education, COVID-19 pandemic, competency-based education, interprofessional education, educational technology, institutional reform, teaching reform, health disparities, history of medical education
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review