The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Cost-effective undergraduate medical education?
Open accessAbstract
The undergraduate medical curriculum is in a labile state, with rapid developments in evidence-based interventions and a shift in emphasis ‘from gaining knowledge to a learning process that includes the ability to evaluate data as well as to develop skills to interact with patients and colleagues’.1 In addition Government-led initiatives to widen participation to medical schools and increasing student numbers2 mean that medical education programmes need to develop alternative learning and teaching resources and strategies to ensure that students from increasingly diverse backgrounds with different learning needs are able to achieve core outcomes. In this editorial we advocate evidence-based curriculum development that also addresses constraints on time and resources: cost-effective curriculum development.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
This limitation impacts the efficiency of medical training, contributes to high teaching costs, and does not fully resolve the issue of limited clinical educational resources.
“This limitation impacts the efficiency of medical training, contributes to high teaching costs, and therefore does not fully resolve the issue of limited clinical educational resources13.”
From A large language model digital patient system enhances ophthalmology history taking skills (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 4 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- General Medical Council, 2003, Tomorrow's Doctors. Recommendations on Undergraduate Medical Education
- 10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1267 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.292.9.1044 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.298.9.1038 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMp0802264 · DOI
- FreethDHammickMKoppelIReevesSBarrHOccasional Paper No. 2: A Critical Review of Evaluations of Interprofessional Education2002YorkHigher Education Academy168
Metadata
- Authors
- Calvert, M. J., & Freemantle, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-02-01
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 46-48
- ISSN
- 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1095
- PMC
- PMC2642867
- OpenAlex
- W2152225508
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Keywords
- undergraduate medical education, medical curriculum development, cost-effectiveness, evidence-based curriculum, widening participation, student numbers, learning needs, teaching materials, resource constraints
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Teaching, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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
