
==== Front
JMIR Res Protoc
JMIR Res Protoc
ResProt
JMIR Research Protocols
1929-0748
JMIR Publications Toronto, Canada

v13i1e56727
39158942
10.2196/56727
Protocol
Protocol
Surgical Residents’ Perception of Feedback on Their Education: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Mavragani Amaryllis
Drott Jenny
Martini Jussara Gue
Schertzer Kimberly
Costa Carlos Dario da Silva MS https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7904-5353
1Center for Studies and Development of Health Education Faculty of Medicine of São José do Rio Preto Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 5416, Vila São Pedro São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, 15090-000 Brazil 55 1732015700 carlosdariocosta@hotmail.com

Silva Gabriela Gouvea MS 1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6044-9115

dos Santos Emerson Roberto MS 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9513-1083

Engel Ana Maria Rita Pedroso Vilela Torres de Carvalho BNurs 1https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7525-4001

Costa Ana Caroline dos Santos BNurs 1https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6779-2670

da Silva Taisa Morete BMedSci 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0367-5041

da Conceição Washington Henrique BMedSci 1https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2445-6704

Cristóvão Helena MS 1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0582-647X

Lima Alba Regina de Abreu PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4332-4059

Brienze Vânia MS PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-2710

Bizotto Thaís Santana Gastardelo PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0627-8631

Oliani Antonio Hélio PhD 12https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1242-4364

André Júlio César PhD 1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0549-4527

1 Center for Studies and Development of Health Education Faculty of Medicine of São José do Rio Preto São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo Brazil
2 University Hospital Center Cova da Beira University of Beira Interior Covilhã Portugal
Corresponding Author: Carlos Dario da Silva Costa carlosdariocosta@hotmail.com
2024
19 8 2024
13 e5672725 1 2024
19 4 2024
22 4 2024
11 7 2024
©Carlos Dario da Silva Costa, Gabriela Gouvea Silva, Emerson Roberto dos Santos, Ana Maria Rita Pedroso Vilela Torres de Carvalho Engel, Ana Caroline dos Santos Costa, Taisa Morete da Silva, Washington Henrique da Conceição, Helena Cristóvão, Alba Regina de Abreu Lima, Vânia MS Brienze, Thaís Santana Gastardelo Bizotto, Antonio Hélio Oliani, Júlio César André. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 19.08.2024.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Background

Feedback is an essential tool for learning and improving performance in any sphere of education, including training of resident physicians. The learner’s perception of the feedback they receive is extremely relevant to their learning progress, which must aim at providing qualified care for patients. Studies pertinent to the matter differ substantially with respect to methodology, population, context, and objective, which makes it even more difficult to achieve a clear understanding of the topic. A scoping review on this theme will unequivocally enhance and organize what is already known.

Objective

The aim of this study is to identify and map out data from studies that report surgical residents’ perception of the feedback received during their education.

Methods

The review will consider studies on the feedback perception of resident physicians of any surgical specialty and age group, attending any year of residency, regardless of the type of feedback given and the way the perceptions were measured. Primary studies published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese since 2017 will be considered. The search will be carried out in 6 databases and reference lists will also be searched for additional studies. Duplicates will be removed, and 2 independent reviewers will screen the selected studies’ titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data extraction will be performed through a tool developed by the researchers. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis (content analysis) will be used to analyze the data. A summary of the results will be presented in the form of diagrams, narratives, and tables.

Results

The findings of this scoping review were submitted to an indexed journal in July 2024, currently awaiting reviewer approval. The search was executed on March 15, 2024, and resulted in 588 articles. After the exclusion of the duplicate articles and those that did not meet the eligibility criteria as well as the inclusion of articles through a manual search, 13 articles were included in the review.

Conclusions

Conducting a scoping review is the best way to map what is known about a subject. By focusing on the feedback perception more than the feedback itself, the results of this study will surely contribute to gaining a deeper understanding of how to proceed to enhance internal feedback and surgical residents’ learning progress.

Trial Registration

Open Science Framework yexb; https://osf.io/yexkb.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/56727

medical education
occupational training
surgical residents
feedback
perception
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Background

Feedback is the delivery of information based on direct observation [1] that must always generate an action in the learner [2]. Feedback constitutes specific information about the comparison between learners’ performance or knowledge regarding a task and the desired standard, with the objective of learners seeking to improve their performance and reduce the distance between the ideal and the real [3]. In other words, feedback is a process in which learners acquire knowledge about their performance and use it to improve the quality of their work or learning strategies [4].

Thus, feedback is an essential tool for learning and improving performance in any sphere of education, especially in medical education and surgery [5-8]. Although the mechanism is not fully known, feedback represents an important part of the resident physician’s training [9], which focuses on the goal of providing qualified care for patients [1,10]. For this reason, the delivery of feedback to residents continues to be an important area of study in medical teaching [5,11].

There are different ways of giving feedback to learners: orally, in writing, through simulation, by videotaping learners, using audience response systems, and via computer-based and patient feedback tools, among others [6,11-13]. Likewise, many methodologies concerning the delivery of feedback have been described, including a feedback sandwich, Pendleton, Pendleton Plus, learning conversation, in groups, among peers, multisource feedback, and self-feedback [7,14-16]. However, independent of the approach, all modes of feedback must focus on the following 3 learning domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective [17].

The large number of methodologies in this field reflects the former paradigm related to feedback, where the key research question was “How can we develop the best feedback?” Accordingly, studies in this field traditionally focused on the quality of the information to be transmitted, how to transmit such information, and what would be the best moment to transmit the information [10]. However, the paradigm has since changed, with the crucial question to answer shifting to “How do learners become attentive to feedback and use the information they receive more effectively?” [18]. Thus, the priority has become the progress achieved in learning and the learner’s engagement in the process enabled by the feedback, which is encompassed by the term “feedforward” [16]. Recent studies on the subject have largely focused on this path [2,7,10,15,19].

Therefore, how the feedback is perceived and the reaction it generates in the learner is as important (or even more important) as the methodology that is used, the moment when it is given, or the information that is provided. Studies have shown that medical students and residents consider that the amount of feedback they receive is insufficient [11,12,20]. Furthermore, they often have a different perception of the feedback received compared to that of the person delivering the feedback [3,9,18,19], although some studies have shown that residents and teachers can share similar opinions concerning the qualities of effective feedback [10]. Feedback is considered effective when it can generate results and promote positive and desirable development [3]. Some factors that reportedly influence the perception of feedback include the teacher’s credibility in the opinion of the learner, who is responsible for giving feedback when the teams are multidisciplinary, the manner and the environment in which feedback is given, the teacher’s educational beliefs, the learner’s individual experiences, the learner’s level of expectation and motivation, and the relationship between feedback and the reflection it generates in the learner [5,7,11,15,21,22].

In opposition to active (or external) feedback, in which the teacher has a primordial role in the learning process, the reflection that the feedback generates in the learner (or internal feedback) enables the learner to go through stages of the competence awareness theory [23], developing a metacognitive learning process, a step that is inseparable from the intentional learning process [3]. That is, the learner’s perception of the feedback they receive is extremely relevant to their learning progress. Moreover, the incorporation of metacognitive aspects in the learning process equips the student with skills to become a lifelong learner [24].

Prior Work

Surgical residents recognize that feedback provides useful suggestions for future improvement, and the lack of feedback can cause frustration [25] or affect self-confidence [26]. They prefer to receive feedback during or immediately after a case, in a face-to-face manner, and value the feedback much more when received within 1 week of the event [27]. However, both resident and staff surgeons agree that postoperative feedback is given far less often than needed [28]. Moreover, surgical residents desire better feedback during residency to grow and develop as leaders [29].

Nevertheless, the studies pertinent to this topic differ substantially with respect to methodology, population, context, and objective, which makes it even more difficult to achieve a clear understanding of the issue. Among all knowledge synthesis methodologies, scoping reviews are considered to be the best way to present a broad overview of evidence in heterogeneous scenarios, summarizing and promoting better comprehension of a field [30-32]. In addition, despite the relevance of the theme, in a preliminary search, few scoping reviews were found on this topic. Although all of these scoping reviews focused on surgery residents’ training in some manner [33-35], none focused on their feedback perception during and after their training. Therefore, it is evident that a scoping review on this theme would have an unequivocal contribution to the understanding and enhancement of surgical residents’ learning progress.

Study Aim

The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map out data from studies that report surgical residents’ perception of the feedback received during their education, analyze these themes, determine knowledge gaps, and disseminate the research findings.

Methods

Design

This scoping review will be carried out rigorously and transparently using the first 5 stages of the structure proposed by Arksey and O’Malley’s [36]: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies; (4) map out the data; and (5) collate, summarize, and report the results. As this is an emerging field, more studies on the theme will likely be finalized. Although the 6th stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s [36] structure (consulting) will not be completed in this review, the results of the review can inform this stage in a future study. This structure is congruent with the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) scoping review methodology [32].

Research Question

The research question was elaborated according to the objective of the review and through the Population, Concept, Context model, with the population including resident physicians of any surgical specialty under the concept of feedback perception in the context of surgical education. Therefore, the following research question was established: “What is known about surgical residents’ perception of feedback in their training?”

Inclusion Criteria

The main eligibility criteria to include articles in the study are those including a population comprising resident physicians of any surgical specialty and age group who were attending any year of residency. Studies assessing the target population’s perception of feedback will be included, regardless of the type of feedback given and the way the perceptions were measured. Eligible studies will be those related to the teaching of the population in question, focusing on surgical education in any country. The following types of articles will be included in the review: studies with qualitative and quantitative approaches, primary studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and/or meta-syntheses, books, and guidelines published in indexed sources.

Exclusion Criteria

Any studies not meeting the eligibility criteria, not published in indexed sources; and publications of opinions, consensuses, retractions, editorials, websites, and advertisements published in the media will be excluded from the review.

Search Strategy

The search strategy will be determined by a librarian who is a specialist in digital search strategies based on the following descriptors: formative feedback, hospital medical staff, teaching, general surgery, and perception, with their corresponding terms in the Portuguese and Spanish languages, encompassing the period from 2017 to the search date. For the combination of descriptors, the Boolean operators “AND,” “OR,” and “NOT” will be considered. The full search strategy that will be used is detailed in Multimedia Appendix 1.

We will consult the databases of journals indexed in Medline, Directory of Open Access Journals, Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources, Academic Search Premier, BioMed Central Open Access, and Wiley-Blackwell, using the descriptors and/or synonyms according to Descritores em Ciências da Saúde (Health Science Descriptors) and Medical Subject Headings for each item of the strategy. These databases were selected because they are comprehensive and have broad coverage of publications in the area of health. The choice of databases will depend on the research question.

Study/Source of Evidence Selection

Duplicate articles will be excluded manually. For the remaining articles, titles and abstracts will be analyzed by 2 independent reviewers to select those that meet the inclusion criteria. Articles that do not meet the eligibility criteria described above will be excluded. In case of divergence, a third reviewer will be consulted and will give the final opinion about the relevance of the article for answering the main research question. Additional sources can be included in the review after a manual search performed by the reviewers, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria, are important to complete the study, and have not already been identified by the search strategy.

To align the inclusion criteria among the reviewers, the titles and abstracts of 25 random articles will be analyzed by 3 researchers. Disagreements regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the articles will be discussed until a consensus is reached.

The complete texts of the selected articles will be evaluated by the main researcher (CDdSC) based on the inclusion criteria. The reasons for the exclusion of articles that have undergone full-text review will be registered and reported in the scoping review report. Any disagreement that emerges among the researchers at any stage of the selection process will be solved through discussion or the addition of other researchers. A PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) flow diagram [36-39] will be used to present, in full, the results of the process of search and inclusion of studies in the scoping review.

Data Extraction

After article selection, the main researcher (CDdSC) will create a form for data extraction, which will be filled in after reading of the full text of the article. The extracted data will include specific details about participants, concept, context, and methods of study, as well as key information related to the research question, such as the method and model of feedback delivery, the strategy used, the study population’s perceptions, and impact of these perceptions on surgical resident education, when such information is available.

A draft of the data extraction form is provided in Textbox 1. This form can be modified and revised as the need arises during the process of data extraction from each included source. The modifications will be described in the scoping review. If appropriate, the authors of the articles will be contacted and asked about missing or complementary data when necessary.

Data extraction instrument developed by the researchers.

Publication details

Journal

Year

Title

Author

Country

Type of study

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Participants

Concept

Context

Reason for exclusion

Findings

Method of feedback

Model of feedback

Resident’s perception

Impact

Analysis of the Evidence

The data will be analyzed in light of the study’s objectives. Quantitative and qualitative analyses will be performed through calculation of descriptive statistics (eg, absolute and percentage frequencies) and content analysis, respectively [40]. Basic data coding will be used for the qualitative analyses, if necessary, depending on the findings. The results will be presented graphically and in the form of tables. This information will be enriched by a descriptive text that will clearly show how the results are related to the research question.

Results

The findings of this scoping review were submitted to an indexed journal in July 2024, currently awaiting reviewer approval. The search was executed on March 15, 2024, and resulted in 588 articles. After the exclusion of the duplicate articles and those that did not meet the eligibility criteria as well as the inclusion of articles through a manual search, 13 articles were included in the review.

Discussion

Projected Significance

This protocol was designed according to the first 5 stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s [36] structure and is congruent with the JBI methodology. Conducting a scoping review is the best way to map what is known about surgical residents’ perception of the feedback received during their education, which can further help to analyze related concepts and determine gaps in the published literature about this subject. Studies in this field have largely focused on the quality of the information to be transmitted, how to transmit such information, and what would be the best moment to do so. However, recent studies on the subject have revealed a shift in priority toward understanding the progress achieved in learning and the learner’s engagement in the process enabled by the feedback.

For example, understanding residents’ perceptions of the feedback received according to the method and model used to provide the feedback could help educators reconsider how to effectively reach their educational objectives in surgery education. As part of knowledge translation [41], such understanding could even result in the proposal of modifications to the medical curriculum and its development, which could be the topic of future research.

Limitations

This protocol has an important limitation. The search strategy was established using terms in Portuguese, Spanish, and English, which surely excludes articles published in different languages and cultures. Moreover, it is known that feedback concepts and practices differ according to the culture and environment [42]. Thus, the findings of this scoping review may not depict the perception of feedback worldwide.

Conclusions

Feedback is an essential tool for learning and improving performance in any sphere of education. Although its mechanism is not fully known, the delivery of feedback to residents continues to be an important area of study in medical teaching. Despite the relevance of the theme, the methodologies, populations, and contexts of the few studies available that are pertinent to the matter differ markedly from one another, and a scoping review on this topic would unequivocally enhance and organize what is already known. In addition, by focusing on the feedback perception more than the feedback itself, the results of this scoping review will contribute to gaining a better understanding of how to proceed to enhance internal feedback and residents’ learning progress.

We are grateful to Zélia Cristina Regis, librarian of the Faculty of Medicine of São José do Rio Preto, Brazil, for her collaboration in designing the search strategy.

Multimedia Appendix 1 Full search strategy.

Abbreviations

JBI Joanna Briggs Institute

PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

Authors' Contributions: CDdSC is the main researcher, who was responsible for the protocol conceptualization, data curation, investigation, formal analyses, writing of the original draft, review and editing of the manuscript, and project administration. GGS contributed to investigation and data curation. ERdS, AMRPVTdCE, ACdSC, TMdS, WHdC, HC, ARdAL, VMSB, TSGB, and AHO contributed to the writing, review, and editing of the manuscript. JCA contributed to the protocol conceptualization, formal analyses; manuscript writing, review, and editing; and supervision. All authors contributed to manuscript review and approval of the submitted version.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
==== Refs
1 Jug R Jiang XS Bean SM Giving and receiving effective feedback: a review article and how-to guide Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019 02 143 2 244 250 10.5858/arpa.2018-0058-RA 30102068 30102068
2 Henderson M Ajjawi R Boud D Molloy E Why focus on feedback impact? The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education Improving Assessment Outcomes for Learners 2019 London Palgrave Macmillam 3 14
3 Pricinote SCMN Pereira ERS Costa NMDSC Fernandes MR O significado do feedback: um olhar de estudantes de medicina Rev Bras Educ Med 2021 45 3 e179 10.1590/1981-5271v45.3-20200517
4 Henderson M Boud D Molloy E Feedback for learning: closing the assessment loop Monash University 2018 2024-08-01 https://feedbackforlearning.org/
5 Thrien C Fabry G Härtl A Kiessling C Graupe T Preusche I Pruskil S Schnabel KP Sennekamp M Rüttermann S Wünsch A Feedback in medical education - a workshop report with practical examples and recommendations GMS J Med Educ 2020 37 5 Doc46 10.3205/zma001339 32984505 zma001339 32984505
6 El Boghdady M Alijani A Feedback in surgical education Surgeon 2017 04 15 2 98 103 10.1016/j.surge.2016.06.006 27426914 S1479-666X(16)30045-2 27426914
7 Gaunt A Markham D Pawlikowska T Exploring the role of self-motives in postgraduate trainees' feedback-seeking behavior in the clinical workplace: a multicenter study of workplace-based assessments from the United Kingdom Acad Med 2018 10 93 10 1576 1583 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002348 29979211 29979211
8 Rodríguez FZ Tendencias históricas en la formación de los cirujanos generales a nivel mundial Educación Médica Superior 2022 36 3 e3292
9 Carr BM O'Neil A Lohse C Heller S Colletti JE Bridging the gap to effective feedback in residency training: perceptions of trainees and teachers BMC Med Educ 2018 10 03 18 1 225 10.1186/s12909-018-1333-9 30285708 10.1186/s12909-018-1333-9 30285708
10 Tomiak A Braund H Egan R Dalgarno N Emack J Reid M Hammad N Exploring how the new entrustable professional activity assessment tools affect the quality of feedback given to medical oncology residents J Cancer Educ 2020 02 3 35 1 165 177 10.1007/s13187-018-1456-z 30604387 10.1007/s13187-018-1456-z 30604387
11 Bing-You R Hayes V Varaklis K Trowbridge R Kemp H McKelvy D Feedback for learners in medical education: what is known? A scoping review Acad Med 2017 09 92 9 1346 1354 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001578 28177958 28177958
12 Dawson P Henderson M Ryan T Inpector J Lockee B Childress M Technology and feedback design Learning, Design, and Technologyy: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice and Policy 2018 Cham, Switzerland Springer International Publishing
13 Gomes C Pereira A Feedback e gamificação em educação [Article in Portugese] EaD en Foco 2021 02 03 11 1 e1227 10.18264/eadf.v11i1.1227
14 Pendleton D Schofield T Tate P Ha P Quill TE The Consultation: an approach to learning and teaching Ann Intern Med 1984 10 01 101 4 577 10.7326/0003-4819-101-4-577_2
15 Yama BA Hodgins M Boydell K Schwartz SB A qualitative exploration: questioning multisource feedback in residency education BMC Med Educ 2018 07 24 18 1 170 10.1186/s12909-018-1270-7 30041635 10.1186/s12909-018-1270-7 30041635
16 Hounsell D Fawns T Aitken G Jones D Feedback in postgraduate online learning: perspectives and practices Beyond Technology: Online Postgraduate Education in a Postdigital World 2021 Cham, Switzerland Springer 39 62
17 American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma ATLS Advanced Trauma Life Support for Doctors - Manuals for Coordinators and Faculty, ninth edition 2015 Chicago, IL American College of Surgeons
18 Henderson M Ryan T Phillips M The challenges of feedback in higher education Assess Eval High Educ 2019 04 05 44 8 1237 1252 10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815
19 Molloy E Ajjawi R Bearman M Noble C Rudland J Ryan A Challenging feedback myths: values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task Med Educ 2020 01 54 1 33 39 10.1111/medu.13802 31475387 31475387
20 Armson H Lockyer JM Zetkulic M Könings KD Sargeant J Identifying coaching skills to improve feedback use in postgraduate medical education Med Educ 2019 05 18 53 5 477 493 10.1111/medu.13818 30779210 30779210
21 Ryan T Henderson M Feeling feedback: students’ emotional responses to educator feedback Assess Eval High Educ 2017 12 13 43 6 880 892 10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456
22 Miles A Ginsburg S Sibbald M Tavares W Watling C Stroud L Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power Med Educ 2021 04 19 55 4 518 529 10.1111/medu.14426 33259070 33259070
23 Kolb D Fry R Cooper C Towards an applied theory of experiential learning Theories of Group Processes 1975 Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons 33 58
24 Wang C Chen S Huang M Exploring medical students' metacognitive and regulatory dimensions of diagnostic problem solving Med Educ Online 2023 12 17 28 1 2210804 10.1080/10872981.2023.2210804 37198958 37198958
25 Ansari T Usmani A Students perception towards feedback in clinical sciences in an outcome-based integrated curriculum Pak J Med Sci 2018 05 24 34 3 702 709 10.12669/pjms.343.15021 30034443 PJMS-34-702 30034443
26 Lees MC Zheng B Daniels LM White JS Factors affecting the development of confidence among surgical trainees J Surg Educ 2019 05 76 3 674 683 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.10.016 30477903 S1931-7204(18)30562-2 30477903
27 Bello RJ Sarmiento S Meyer ML Rosson GD Cooney DS Lifchez SD Cooney CM Understanding surgical resident and fellow perspectives on their operative performance feedback needs: a qualitative study J Surg Educ 2018 11 75 6 1498 1503 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.04.002 29685786 S1931-7204(17)30840-1 29685786
28 Nathwani JN Glarner CE Law KE McDonald RJ Zelenski AB Greenberg JA Foley EF Integrating postoperative feedback into workflow: perceived practices and barriers J Surg Educ 2017 05 74 3 406 414 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.001 27894938 S1931-7204(16)30283-5 27894938
29 Vu JV Harbaugh CM De Roo AC Biesterveld BE Gauger PG Dimick JB Sandhu G Leadership-specific feedback practices in surgical residency: a qualitative study J Surg Educ 2020 01 77 1 45 53 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.08.020 31492642 S1931-7204(19)30466-0 31492642
30 Levac D Colquhoun H O'Brien KK Scoping studies: advancing the methodology Implement Sci 2010 09 20 5 69 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 20854677 1748-5908-5-69 20854677
31 Maggio LA Larsen K Thomas A Costello JA Artino AR Scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review Med Educ 2021 06 30 55 6 689 700 10.1111/medu.14431 33300124 33300124
32 Peters M Godfrey C McInerney P Khalil H Larsen P Marnie C Pollock D Tricco AC Munn Z Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols JBI Evid Synth 2022 04 01 20 4 953 968 10.11124/JBIES-21-00242 35102103 02174543-202204000-00003 35102103
33 Kapadia MR Lee E Healy H Dort JM Rosenbaum ME Newcomb AB Training surgical residents to communicate with their patients: a scoping review of the literature J Surg Educ 2021 03 78 2 440 449 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.08.018 32928697 S1931-7204(20)30315-9 32928697
34 Gkiousias V Scalpel please! A scoping review dissecting the factors and influences on professional identity development of trainees within surgical programs Cureus 2021 12 13 12 e20105 10.7759/cureus.20105 35003955 35003955
35 O'Flynn E Danial A Gajewski J Global surgery education and training programmes-a scoping review and taxonomy Indian J Surg 2022 04 25 84 Suppl 1 193 206 10.1007/s12262-021-03081-w 34456525 3081 34456525
36 Arksey H O'Malley L Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework Int J Soc Res Method 2005 02 8 1 19 32 10.1080/1364557032000119616
37 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O'Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D Moher D Peters MD Horsley T Weeks L Hempel S Akl EA Chang C McGowan J Stewart L Hartling L Aldcroft A Wilson MG Garritty C Lewin S Godfrey CM Macdonald MT Langlois EV Soares-Weiser K Moriarty J Clifford T Tunçalp Ö Straus SE PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 10 02 169 7 467 473 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033 2700389 30178033
38 Peters M Godfrey C McInerney P Munn Z Tricco A Khalil H Scoping reviews JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2021 2024-08-01 https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355862497/10.+Scoping+reviews
39 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD Shamseer L Tetzlaff JM Akl EA Brennan SE Chou R Glanville J Grimshaw JM Hróbjartsson A Lalu MM Li T Loder EW Mayo-Wilson E McDonald S McGuinness LA Stewart LA Thomas J Tricco AC Welch VA Whiting P Moher D The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 03 29 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057 33782057
40 Stemler S An overview of content analysis Pract Assess Res Eval 2001 7 17 246 10.7275/z6fm-2e34
41 Straus SE Tetroe J Graham I Defining knowledge translation CMAJ 2009 08 04 181 3-4 165 168 10.1503/cmaj.081229 19620273 cmaj.081229 19620273
42 Malik A Kiran F Farooq F Feedback: Different concepts and practices in a culturally different environment-Faculty perceptions Pakistan Armed Forces Med J 2021 04 30 71 2 655 62 10.51253/pafmj.v71i2.6283
