Просмотр новости
Найдите то, что Вас интересует
Спутники
РН
SpaceX
Роскосмос
NASA
Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Дата публикации: 14-07-2026 06:14:18
Abstract Introduction Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education are increasingly implemented to support students’ professional and personal development. Yet, the design and purpose of these programmes vary significantly across different institutions. This integrative review will systematically synthesise the literature on coaching programmes, focusing on structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies. Methods and analysis A comprehensive literature review will be conducted using Whittemore and Knafl’s integrative review methodology. The search strategy includes the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete, supplemented by a hand search. Two reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records, and study selection will be documented in a PRISMA flowchart. Data will be extracted from eligible full texts on descriptive metadata, structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies of the described coaching programmes. The quality of the included studies will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for empirical studies and the JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion for non-empirical studies. Extracted data will be analysed descriptively and thematically and integrated into a framework that can serve future programme development. Ethics and dissemination As this review is based exclusively on secondary data, no ethical approval is required. The results of the review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an academic conference. Open Science Framework registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/UTHJC
Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.
Weber L, Freeman J, Gysin S et al. Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.2)
Study Protocol
Revised
[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8830-3018
1,2, Jodie Freeman1, Stefan Gysin3, [...] Jonas Florin3, Anders Sondénhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-9506
4, Dominik Schaer2,5, Sissel Guttormsenhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9932-1872
1https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8830-3018
1,2, Jodie Freeman1, [...] Stefan Gysin3, Jonas Florin3, Anders Sondénhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5239-9506
4, Dominik Schaer2,5, Sissel Guttormsenhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9932-1872
11 Institute for Medical Education, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
3 Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
4 Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
5 Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Lucia Weber
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Jodie Freeman
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
Stefan Gysin
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Jonas Florin
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Anders Sondén
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing
Dominik Schaer
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing
Sissel Guttormsen
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Abstract Introduction
Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education are increasingly implemented to support students’ professional and personal development. Yet, the design and purpose of these programmes vary significantly across different institutions. This integrative review will systematically synthesise the literature on coaching programmes, focusing on structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies.
Methods and analysisA comprehensive literature review will be conducted using Whittemore and Knafl’s integrative review methodology. The search strategy includes the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete, supplemented by a hand search. Two reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records, and study selection will be documented in a PRISMA flowchart. Data will be extracted from eligible full texts on descriptive metadata, structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies of the described coaching programmes. The quality of the included studies will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for empirical studies and the JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion for non-empirical studies. Extracted data will be analysed descriptively and thematically and integrated into a framework that can serve future programme development.
Ethics and disseminationAs this review is based exclusively on secondary data, no ethical approval is required. The results of the review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an academic conference.
Open Science Framework registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/UTHJC
Keywords
Coaching, undergraduate medical education, curriculum development, medical student, review
Corresponding author: Lucia Weber Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright: © 2026 Weber L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Weber L, Freeman J, Gysin S et al. Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.2) First published: 04 May 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1) Latest published: 14 Jul 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.2)
Revised Amendments from Version 1
The following points have been revised in the protocol:
1) We added clarification that inter-rater reliability will not be calculated during study selection. Instead, all records will be screened by two reviewers, and discrepancies will be resolved through consensus discussions.
2) We provided more detail on how coaching will be differentiated from mentoring and how eligibility decisions will be made.
3) We specified the proportion of articles for which data extraction will be cross-checked by a second reviewer.
4) We extended the description of our approach to thematic analysis, including how codes will be generated and refined.
5) We added a reflexivity section describing the backgrounds of the research team members.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Krystal Hunter
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Marcelo Garcia Dieguez
Introduction
Undergraduate medical education places considerable cognitive, organisational and emotional demands on students. Medical students are required to manage large volumes of learning content, develop their professional identity and make early career decisions, often while navigating stress, uncertainty and continuous assessment.
Around one-third of medical students experience mental health problems such as burnout, anxiety and depression.1 Poor mental health has been associated with impaired academic performance, thoughts of dropping out of medical school, reduced professionalism and empathy, medical errors, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation.1,2
In parallel, the shift towards competency-based medical education places increasing emphasis on learners’ ability to direct and regulate their own learning.3 Self-regulated learning skills are essential not only for managing the immediate demands of undergraduate training, but also for developing the adaptive expertise required in the rapidly evolving healthcare environment.3–5
In the context of these challenges, coaching has emerged as an educational approach to support students’ learning, wellbeing and professional development. Coaching can be defined as a structured, learner-centred process that supports students’ individual development through reflection, goal setting and personalised guidance.6 In contrast to related concepts such as advising and mentoring, coaching uniquely focuses on stimulating students’ introspection and self-learning.7
Coaching is used in a variety of ways within medical education. Lovell8 differentiates between three categories: coaching for wellbeing and resilience; coaching for improved non-technical skills; and coaching for technical skills. More recently, the term academic coaching has gained prominence. While skills-based coaching typically involves direct observation and feedback for improving specific clinical skills,8 academic coaching usually refers to guiding students’ individual development by reviewing assessment data and personal experiences to foster reflective processes and self-regulated learning.5,6
Although coaching programmes are becoming more common in undergraduate medical education, their structural characteristics, goals and educational strategies vary significantly across institutions.9,10 Variation in structural characteristics refers to differences in how the programmes are organised, such as their format (individual versus group-based), duration, session frequency and the profile of coaches involved. Differences in goals relate to the intended developmental focus of the programmes, which may range from academic performance to wellbeing, professional identity formation or development of learning skills.10 Variation in educational strategies reflects the diverse approaches used to support students’ development, including the coaching activities and any theoretical frameworks the coaching is based on.
This heterogeneity can make it difficult for educators to understand what constitutes a coaching programme, how such programmes are designed and which components are essential. However, there is limited synthesised evidence that maps this variation in a systematic way. Although prior studies provide a basic overview of coaching in medical education,8–10 there is neither a recent nor a comprehensive review on coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education.
Objective
This review aims to synthesise literature on coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education, analysing programme structures, goals, and educational strategies to provide a foundation for future programme development.
Research questions
The following research questions (RQ) will guide this review:
• RQ1: What are the structural characteristics of coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education?
• RQ2: What goals do these coaching programmes aim to achieve?
• RQ3: What educational strategies are used to operationalise these goals?
Methods and analysis
We will conduct an Integrative Review, following Whittemore and Knafl’s11 five-step framework: 1) problem identification, 2) literature search, 3) data evaluation, 4) data analysis, and 5) presentation. An integrative approach was chosen as it is suitable for general reviews and initial synthesis of emerging topics, allowing inclusion of various research types and enabling integration of evidence into new conceptual frameworks.12
For the purpose of this review, we define a coaching programme as a structured, goal-oriented process, in which a coach meets regularly with medical students to guide their individual development and promote the students’ self-reflection. Our definition is adapted from the description of academic coaching.5,6 However, our definition intends to apply a broad scope, including not only coaching programmes that focus on reviewing assessment data to foster self-regulated learning but also other types of coaching, such as coaching for wellbeing.
Eligibility criteria
Table 1 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria for our review.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.CriterionInclusionExclusionPopulation (Target Group of Coaching) Setting Intervention Type of Literature Peer-reviewed academic articles Study Design Focus/Content of the Article Time Period No time restrictionLanguage English and GermanOther LanguagesAvailability Full text availableFull text unavailable
- Undergraduate medical students
- Postgraduate medical students; residents; physicians
- Students from other disciplines such as nursing, veterinary medicine, biomedicine
- Medical faculty
- Patients
- Medical schools or universities with a medical curriculum
- worldwide
- Commercial coaching
- Coaching programmes that meet our definition of coaching
- The terms ‘coaching’ or ‘coach’ must be in the title and/or description of the program
- Programmes that also include other types of support such as mentoring or advising will also be included, if the main focus of the programme is on coaching
- Mentoring, advising, training, tutoring, supervision, or interventions not explicitly described as coaching
- Coaching that solely focuses on improving specific clinical skills
- Grey literature
- Books and book chapters
- Empirical (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods)
- Non-empirical (e.g., descriptive programme reports)
- Reviews (relevant reviews will not be included for data extraction, but will be used for handsearching reference lists)
- Article should include a description of an existing, planned or theoretical coaching programme for medical students
- should include structural characteristics, goals and/or educational strategies of the programme
- No description of structural characteristics, goals or content of a coaching programme
Data sources
An electronic database search was conducted as part of this integrative review. The following databases were searched to ensure broad coverage of relevant literature: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC (all accessed via Ovid), as well as Education Research Complete (accessed via EBSCOhost). We will further perform a hand search of reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews to ensure completeness.
Search strategy
A university librarian assisted in developing and refining the search strategy. The searches combined free-text keywords with controlled vocabulary terms specific to each database. An example of the complete search string used in Ovid MEDLINE is presented in Table 2. Full search strings for all databases are provided in the supplementary materials. The electronic database search was conducted on 25 August 2025. Table 3 shows the results of our literature search.
Selection process
All retrieved records were imported into the screening software Rayyan13 and deduplicated, resulting in 1,400 unique records. The screening process consists of two stages: an initial title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening. Prior to formal screening, a pilot test with a random sample of 20 titles and abstracts was used to refine the eligibility criteria. Both reviewers will screen all records independently using these criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer available to assist in cases of uncertainty. Inter-rater reliability will not be calculated, as all records will be assessed by at least two reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through consensus rather than quantified statistically. A reflexive diary will be maintained to record key decisions, reflections, and potential biases. Given the conceptual overlap between coaching and other interventions such as mentoring, the reviewers will apply the working definition of a coaching programme consistently during screening. We will only include articles describing programmes that clearly describe coaching, which involves fostering students’ self-reflection to help them achieve their goals. Although mentoring programmes can incorporate coaching methodology, mentoring focuses more on an experienced individual in the students’ field of interest providing expert insight to support their development.7 Programmes described as mentoring, as well as programmes in which coaching is mentioned as an element of mentoring or other types of student support, will be excluded. Ambiguous or borderline cases will be discussed between reviewers to reach a shared interpretation. Any necessary refinements in our working definition and eligibility criteria will be documented in the reflexive diary. The study selection process will be reported using a PRISMA flowchart.14
Data extraction
Once the eligible full texts have been selected, relevant data will be extracted using a data extraction form. Data will be extracted on the following components:
• Descriptive metadata: Author, year of publication, journal, publication type, study design, country, institution, coaching program title
• Structural characteristics of the described coaching programme (referring to RQ1): Target group, coaching format, number of students per coach, group size, group composition, group continuity, coach profile, overall duration, voluntary/obligatory, mode of delivery, frequency of sessions, duration of sessions
• Goals of the described coaching programme (referring to RQ2): intended developmental focus of the coaching programme
• Educational strategies of the described coaching programme (referring to RQ3): Educational frameworks referenced, session activities and content, activities outside of coaching sessions
The data extraction form will be piloted by two reviewers on a sample of studies and refined as needed. One reviewer will extract data for all included studies, and a second reviewer will cross-check a subset of at least 10% in the first phase of the extraction to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Quality appraisal
The methodological quality of all eligible empirical studies will be appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool,15 which allows for the assessment of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies within a single framework. For non-empirical studies, quality appraisal will be based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Text and Opinion.16 Two reviewers will independently appraise the quality of all included studies. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, including a third reviewer available, if needed. Each study will receive a descriptive rating for each of the corresponding methodological criteria, indicating whether the criterion is met, not met or unclear. These quality ratings will be reported in a summary table to contextualise the strength and transparency of the included evidence. However, no studies will be excluded based on quality, consistent with integrative review methodology.11 Studies with lower quality ratings will be marked in the extraction sheet and interpreted cautiously during synthesis.
Data analysis and synthesis
Extracted data will be analysed using descriptive analysis to summarise and compare structural characteristics across studies. Qualitative data on programme goals and educational strategies will be analysed using thematic analysis.17 A combined deductive-inductive coding approach will be used, with an initial deductive coding framework informed by a review of relevant literature and discussions within the research team. This framework will be iteratively refined and expanded with inductive codes as data are analysed. All extracted data will be coded by one researcher and emerging themes will be discussed within the research team until consensus is reached. Findings from both strands will be compared and synthesised into a framework, illustrating how coaching programmes can be designed to address various student needs and developmental goals.
Reflexivity
The reviewers conducting the study selection and quality appraisal all have academic backgrounds in psychology (LW, JFr, and SGu) and bring complementary expertise in medical education and health-science research, including a junior researcher in medical education (LW), an experienced qualitative health researcher (JF), and a professor of medical education (SGu). The broader research team also includes physicians who are actively involved in undergraduate medical education and contribute complementary perspectives throughout the review process (SGy, JFl, DS). This review protocol originated from a broader project aiming to develop a coaching program for medical students. Through this work, several members of the broader research team had previously discussed the conceptual definitions of coaching, which informed our understanding of coaching and therefore the eligibility criteria to be applied in the review process.
Dissemination
The findings of this integrative review will be shared through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and/or presentations at a relevant academic conference.
Study status
The electronic database search has been completed and screening is ongoing at the time of submission. Any important protocol amendments will be documented reported in the final review manuscript.
Ethical considerations
As this review is based exclusively on secondary data, no ethical approval is required.
Data availability
Underlying data
No data is associated with this article.
Extended data
Open Science Framework: Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AWDPY. CC-By Attribution 4.0 International.18
Reporting guidelines
Open Science Framework: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review’, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AWDPY. CC-By Attribution 4.0 International.18
References
- 1. Jahrami H, Alkaabi J, Trabelsi K, et al.: The worldwide prevalence of self-reported psychological and behavioral symptoms in medical students: An umbrella review and meta-analysis of meta-analyses. J. Psychosom. Res. 2023; 173: 111479. Publisher Full Text
- 2. Breslin L, Dyrbye L, Chelf C, et al.: Effects of coaching on medical student well-being and distress: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2023; 13(8): e073214. Publisher Full Text
- 3. Lomis KD, Mejicano GC, Caverzagie KJ, et al.: The critical role of infrastructure and organizational culture in implementing competency-based education and individualized pathways in undergraduate medical education. Med. Teach. 2021; 43(sup2): S7–S16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
- 4. Cutrer WB, Miller B, Pusic MV, et al.: Fostering the Development of Master Adaptive Learners: A Conceptual Model to Guide Skill Acquisition in Medical Education. Acad. Med. 2017; 92(1): 70–75. Publisher Full Text
- 5. King SM, Carnicer Hijazo R, Anas S, et al.: Academic coaching as a pedagogy to facilitate the navigation of complexity across the health professions education continuum. Front. Med. 2025; 12: 1523741. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
- 6. Wolff M, Morgan H, Jackson J, et al.: Academic coaching: Insights from the medical student’s perspective. Med. Teach. 2020; 42(2): 172–177. Publisher Full Text
- 7. Santiesteban L, Young E, Tiarks GC, et al.: Defining Advising, Coaching, and Mentoring for Student Development in Medical Education. Cureus. 2022; 14(7): e27356. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
- 8. Lovell B: What do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review. Med. Educ. 2018; 52(4): 376–390. Publisher Full Text
- 9. Taylor D, Anderson K, Dathatri S, et al.: Medical student coaching in the U.S.: a national survey of clinical skills educators. BMC Med. Educ. 2025; 25. Publisher Full Text
- 10. Wolff M, Hammoud M, Santen S, et al.: Coaching in undergraduate medical education: a national survey. Med. Educ. Online. 2020; 25(1): 1699765. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
- 11. Whittemore R, Knafl K: The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005; 52(5): 546–553. Publisher Full Text
- 12. Elsbach KD, Van Knippenberg D: Creating High-Impact Literature Reviews: An Argument for ‘Integrative Reviews’. J. Manag. Stud. 2020; 57(6): 1277–1289. Publisher Full Text
- 13. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al.: Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016; 5: 210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
- 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; n71.
- 15. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al.: The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ. Inf. 2018; 34(4): 285–291. Publisher Full Text
- 16. McArthur A, Klugarova J, Yan H, et al.: Chapter 4: Systematic reviews of text and opinion. JBI manual for evidence synthesis JBI. 2020; 10: 134–74.
- 17. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text
- 18. Weber L, Freeman J, Gysin S, et al.: Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review. Open Science Framework. 2026.
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
© 2026 Weber L et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 14 Jul 2026
Revised
Reviewer Report 25 Jul 2026
Marcelo Garcia Dieguez, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
Approved
VIEWS 0
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Competency-based curriculum design EPAs for undergraduate and residency, burnout/vitality in faculty, EPAs for undergraduate and residency, OSCE/ECOE assessment, Script Concordance Test, psychometrics (cut-off methods), postgraduate medical education and residency training .
CloseReviewer Report 22 Jul 2026
Krystal Hunter, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA
Approved
VIEWS 0
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Biostatistics, Survey studies
CloseVersion 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 04 May 2026
Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2026
Krystal Hunter, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 0
-
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
-
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
-
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
-
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
CloseReviewer Report 12 Jun 2026
Marcelo Garcia Dieguez, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 0
-
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
-
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
-
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
-
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: competency-based curriculum design EPAs for undergraduate and residency, burnout/vitality in faculty, EPAs for undergraduate and residency, OSCE/ECOE assessment, Script Concordance Test, psychometrics (cut-off methods), postgradute medical education and residency trainin
CloseOpen Peer Review
Reviewer Status
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
- Approved
- The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
- Approved with reservations
- A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
- Not approved
- Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
| Invited Reviewers | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |
| Version 2 (revision) 14 Jul 26 | read | read |
| Version 1 04 May 26 | read | read |
Comments on this article
Sign up for content alerts
Browse by related subjects
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Схожие новости
Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 6.79. Источник: f1000research.com.