Cited by 33Innovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical EducationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Patient perceptions of their role in undergraduate medical education within a primary care teaching practice

Lucas, Beverley, Pearson, David·2012·Education for Primary Care

Abstract

CONTEXT: The importance of patient involvement as a positive contribution to both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education is now widely acknowledged. Patient contact has become an integral component of teaching, learning and assessment strategies. Research has considered the pedagogic advantage; however, a view from the patient on structure, process and outcome of their contribution has gone largely unexplored. The role of real patients in medical education is changing from passive to a more active involvement. Various commentators have called for more research into patients' perceptions of their role and involvement across a spectrum of educational activities and settings. This study offers an in-depth exploration of the patient perspective from primary care; a setting increasingly important for undergraduate medical education. The aim of this study is to explore patients' perceptions of their role in undergraduate medical education within a UK primary care setting. METHOD: A case study approach with an emphasis on data from in-depth interviews of 18 volunteer patients conducted within a purposively selected single teaching practice. The study captures patient perceptions of their experience, process and an evaluation of their involvement in medical student education. RESULTS: Findings highlight four key themes of involvement that reflect the existing literature but provide additional insights. The themes are; reflections on level of involvement and organisational support; benefits to students; perceived benefits to patients themselves; and wider benefits to medical education and educators. CONCLUSION: Patient perceptions of their involvement in clinical teaching support their key intended role within the educational process. Patients identified perceptions of benefit for students, educators and themselves. The implications of these findings are explored within the context of educational practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14739879.2012.11494121

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lucas, B., & Pearson, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Hull York Medical School (GB)
Corresponding author
Lucas, Beverley
Venue
Education for Primary Care
Published
2012-01
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
277-285
ISSN
  • 1473-9879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-990X
OpenAlex
W189805155
Cited by
33
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Education for Primary Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
patient involvement in medical education, patient perspectives, undergraduate medical education, clinical teaching, patient role
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Learning, Patients, Perception, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care, General Practice

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