Abstract
Background Clinical education has moved to a “competency-based” model with an emphasis on workplace-based learning and assessment which, in turn, depends on feedback to be effective. Further, the understanding of feedback has changed from information about a performance directed to the learner performing the task, to a dialogue, which enables the learner to act and develop.
In health professional education, feedback is a complex interaction between trainee, supervisor and the healthcare system. Most published research on feedback in health professional education originates in Europe and North America. Our interest is on the impact of culture on this process, particularly in the context of Asian cultures.
A realist approach looks at complex interventions in social situations, and so would seem appropriate lens to use to examine the influence of cultural factors on utilising feedback.
Methods An initial search has been performed to define the scope of the review question and develop our candidate / “best guess” program theory. The formal electronic search was carried out in February 2020 and included: CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo, and repeated in October 2020. Retrieved articles were imported into Covidence for screening and data extraction, after which components of the Context – Mechanisms – Outcomes configurations will be sought to refine the initial program theory.
Discussion Feedback has been recognised as critically important in competency-based health professional education, yet feedback is a complex, socially based “intervention”. Most of the published literature on feedback originates from “Western” cultures. This protocol aims to provide further information that may lead to improving the usefulness of feedback in the South East Asian region.
Systematic Review Registration Registration was sought with PROSPERO and advice given was that this review was not eligible for registration as it did not have a “direct and clinically-relevant health-related outcome”.
Strengths and limitations of this study
A Realist approach potentially best explains the complexities of Culture’s impact on feedback.
To our knowledge, there are few studies of feedback seeking and provision to health professional trainees in Asia.
In addition to formal literature database searches, we will need to conduct citation mining to locate other relevant resources.
The typical assessment of “Risk of bias” does not apply to the Realist approach.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval not required - literature review protocol.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
E-mail: paul.fullerton{at}monash.edu
E-mail: wendy.mckenzie{at}monash.edu
E-mail: mahbub.sarkar{at}monash.edu
E-mail: shamsul{at}monash.edu
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos