The DOI matches its Crossref record; 113 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: We undertook a systematic review to identify the best evidence for how professionalism in medicine should be taught. METHODS: Eligible studies included any articles published between 1999 and 2009 inclusive. We reviewed papers presenting viewpoints and opinions as well as empirical research. We performed a comparative and thematic synthesis on all papers meeting inclusion criteria in order to capture the best available evidence on how to teach professionalism. RESULTS: We identified 217 papers on how to teach professionalism. Of these, we determined 43 to be best evidence. Few studies provided comprehensive evaluation or assessment data demonstrating success. As yet, there has not emerged a unifying theoretical or practical model to integrate the teaching of professionalism into the medical curriculum. DISCUSSION: Evident themes in the literature are that role modelling and personal reflections, ideally guided by faculty, are the important elements in current teaching programmes, and are widely held to be the most effective techniques for developing professionalism. While it is generally held that professionalism should be part of the whole of a medical curriculum, the specifics of sequence, depth, detail, and the nature of how to integrate professionalism with other curriculum elements remain matters of evolving theory.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine
Engel, G. L. (1977) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.847460 · Cited by 12,887
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190 · cited 2×
“There is a growing body of literature on techniques for combining different types of evidence in a systematic review (Finfgeld 2003; Harden et al. 2004; Dixon-Woods et al. 2005; Oliver et al. 2005; Pawson et al. 2005; Barnett-Page & Thomas 2009), although this evolution is very much a work in progress, with no establi…”
BackgroundChecklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Barbour, R. S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115 · Cited by 2,613
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006) · Lancaster University · doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 · Cited by 2,070 · cited 5×
“The potential drawback is that a study expressing aberrant views or faulty conclusions will gain high citations count through other authors finding fault with it (Popay et al. 2006).”
InfluentialGreenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045 · cited 1×
“This supports Greenhalgh’s findings that for complex areas, traditional search strings are not enough (Greenhalgh & Peacock 2005).”
BackgroundMethods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 · Cited by 2,042
Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature
MITTON, C., ADAIR, C. E., MCKENZIE, E., PATTEN, S. B., & PERRY, B. W. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x · Cited by 1,050
Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis
Slavin, R. E. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-a · Cited by 949
The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine
Engel, G. L. (2012) · Psychodynamic Psychiatry · doi:10.1521/pdps.2012.40.3.377 · Cited by 892
Cited by
Amending miller’s pyramid to include professional identity formation.
Cruess, R. L., Cruess, S. R., & Steinert, Y. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000913 · Cited by 558
Supporting the development of a professional identity: General principles
Cruess, S. R., Cruess, R. L., & Steinert, Y. (2019) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1536260 · Cited by 490
Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold
Buja, L. M. (2019) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-019-1535-9 · Cited by 284
STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis
Gordon, M., & Gibbs, T. (2014) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0 · Cited by 146
Coaching in undergraduate medical education: a national survey
Wolff, M., Hammoud, M., Santen, S., Deiorio, N., & Fix, M. (2020) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2019.1699765 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Birden, H., Glass, N., Wilson, I., Harrison, M., Usherwood, T., & Nass, D.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e1252-e1266
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2099933062
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 113
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/0142159x.2013.789132
- The paper
- Birden, H., Glass, N., Wilson, I., Harrison, M., Usherwood, T., & Nass, D. (2013). Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25. Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2013.789132
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
