Cited by 62Innovations in Medical EducationCoaching Methods and ImpactMentoring and Academic Development

Coaching in undergraduate medical education: a national survey

Open access
Wolff, Margaret, Hammoud, Maya, Santen, Sally, Deiorio, Nicole, Fix, Megan·2020·Medical Education Online

Abstract

Background: Evidence to support coaching in medical education has grown over the past decade leading educators to search for resources to aid the development of their own coaching programs. A sample of medical schools in the USA were surveyed to describe coaching programs to assist other institutions in the development and implementation of programs.Methods: Participants representing 32 medical schools attending a coaching conference in October 2018 were surveyed via email regarding their undergraduate medical education (UME) coaching programs. The 19-item instrument contained questions on program demographics, program characteristics, coach characteristics, coach training and coach assessment and program evaluation.Results: The response rate was 100% (32/32 programs). Nearly all respondents had a coaching program (53%, 17/32) or were developing one (44%, 14/32) with the majority being implemented in the past five years (82%, 14/17). Professional identity formation (80%, 20/25), professionalism (76%, 19/25), and academic performance (76%, 19/25) were the most commonly identified programmatic goals. The majority of coaches (64%, 16/25) received between 5-25% full time equivalent effort to support their role. Coaches did not formally assess students in any domain at most programs (84%, 21/25) or directly observe their students clinically (76%, 19/25). The majority of programs had formal coach training (88%, 22/25).Conclusion: These results demonstrate that coaching is being used to improve performance, professionalism, and professional identity formation in UME. This sample of coaching programs informs the discussion of coaching in medical education as educators strive to implement effective coaching programs.

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 · 10.1080/10872981.2019.1699765

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Deorio N, Hammoud M, eds. Coaching in medical education, a faculty handbook | AMA. 1st ed. American Medical Association; 2017 [ cited 2018 5 3]. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/education/coaching-medical-education-faculty-handbook

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolff, M., Hammoud, M., Santen, S., Deiorio, N., & Fix, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Wolff, Margaret
Venue
Medical Education Online
Published
2019-12-03
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
1699765-1699765
ISSN
1087-2981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2992879436
Cited by
62
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education Online (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002649)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
Keywords
undergraduate medical education, coaching programs, coach education, professional identity formation, professionalism, academic performance, coach assessment, program evaluation, medical schools
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, United States, Program Evaluation

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