Cited by 256Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Feedback for learners in medical education: What is known? A scoping review.

Bing-You, Robert, Hayes, Victoria, Varaklis, Kalli, Trowbridge, Robert, Kemp, Heather, McKelvy, Dina·2017·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Purpose: To conduct a scoping review of the literature on feedback for learners in medical education. Method: In 2015–2016, the authors searched the Ovid MEDLINE, ERIC, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and seven medical education journals (via OvidSP) for articles published January 1980–December 2015. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility with inclusion criteria. All authors extracted key data and analyzed data descriptively. Results: The authors included 650 articles in the review. More than half (n = 341) were published during 2010–2015. Many centered on medical students (n = 274) or residents (n = 192); some included learners from other disciplines (n = 57). Most (n = 633) described methods used for giving feedback; some (n = 95) described opinions and recommendations regarding feedback. Few studies assessed approaches to feedback with randomized, educational trials (n = 49) or described changes in learner behavior after feedback (n = 49). Even fewer assessed the impact of feedback on patient outcomes (n = 28). Conclusions: Feedback is considered an important means of improving learner performance, as evidenced by the number of articles outlining recommendations for feedback approaches. The literature on feedback for learners in medical education is broad, fairly recent, and generally describes new or altered curricular approaches that involve feedback for learners. High-quality, evidence-based recommendations for feedback are lacking. In addition to highlighting calls to reassess the concepts and complex nature of feedback interactions, the authors identify several areas that require further investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000001578

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Feedback in medical education is a complex social interaction, influenced by the feedback provider, feedback receiver, and context.

    “The number of studies addressing the provision of feedback in medical education continues to increase, 1 and their results support viewing feedback as a complex social interaction, influenced by the feedback provider, feedback receiver, and context.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bing-You, R., Hayes, V., Varaklis, K., Trowbridge, R., Kemp, H., & McKelvy, D.
Affiliations
  • R. Bing-Youis professor, Tufts University School of Medicine, and vice president for medical education, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine.
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Maine Medical Center (US)
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2017-09
Volume
92
Issue
9
Pages
1346-1354
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588262856
Cited by
256
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5
FWCI
3.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
feedback, medical education, learner performance, medical students, residents (medical training), feedback methods, learner behavior, patient outcomes, evidence-based recommendations
MeSH terms
Formative Feedback, Education, Medical, Humans, Learning

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