Lessons learned spanning 17 years of experience with three consecutive nationwide competency based medical education training plans.

Introduction: Curricula for postgraduate medical education have transformed since the introduction of competency based medical education (CBME). Postgraduate training plans offer broader training with different competencies and an outcome-based approach, in addition to the medical technical aspects of training. However, CBME also has its challenges. Over the past years, critical views have been shared on the potential drawbacks of CBME, such as assessment burden and conflicts with practicality in the workplace. Recent studies identified a need for a better understanding of how the evolving concept of CBME has been translated to curriculum design and implemented in the practice of postgraduate training. The aim of this study was to describe the development of CBME translations to curriculum design, based on three consecutive postgraduate training programs spanning 17 years. Method: We performed a document analysis of three consecutive Dutch gynecology and obstetrics training plans that were implemented in 2005, 2013, and 2021. We used template analysis to identify changes over time. Results: Over time, CBME-based curriculum design changed in several domains. Assessment changed from a model with a focus on summative decision to one with an emphasis on formative, low-stakes assessments aimed at supporting learning. The training plans evolved in parallel to evolving educational insights, e.g., by placing increasing emphasis on personal development. The curricula focused on a competency-based concept by introducing training modules and personalized authorization based on feedback rather than on a set duration of internships. There was increasing freedom in personalized training trajectories in the training plans, together with increasing trust towards the resident. Conclusion: The way CBME was translated into training plans has evolved in the course of 17 years of experience with CMBE-based education. The main areas of change were the structure of the training plans, which became increasingly open, the degree to which learning outcomes were mandatory or not, and the way these outcomes were assessed.

Navigating Confidentiality Dilemmas in Student Support: An Institutional Ethnography Informed Study.

Introduction: School-level student support programmes provide students with pastoral care and support for academic, wellbeing and other issues often via a personal tutor (PT). PT work is a balancing act between respecting the confidential information divulged by students and doing what is expected in terms of accountability and duty of care. We aimed to explore how tutors manage this tension, with the aim of advancing understanding of student support programmes. Methods: This qualitative study was informed by an Institutional Ethnography approach. We conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with PTs from one medical school in Singapore. We considered how they worked in relation to relevant national and institutional-level policy documents and reporting guidelines. Data collection and analysis were iterative. Results: We crafted two composite accounts to illustrate the dilemmas faced by PTs. The first depicts a PT who supports student confidentiality in the same way as doctor-patient confidentiality. The second account is a PT who adopted a more mentoring approach. Both tutors faced confidentiality challenges, using different strategies to "work around" and balance tensions between accountability and maintaining trust. PTs were torn between school and student expectations. Discussion: Fostering trust in the tutor-student relationship is a priority for tutors but tensions between confidentiality, accountability and governance sometimes make it difficult for tutors to reconcile with doing what they think is best for the student. A more nuanced understanding of the concept of confidentiality may help support PTs and ultimately students.

How do validity experts conceptualise argumentation? It's a rhetorical question.

INTRODUCTION: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. METHODS: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. RESULTS: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post-positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context-dependent), audience-centric and inclusive. DISCUSSION: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real-world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory.

Combining Support and Assessment in Health Professions Education: Mentors' and Mentees' Experiences in a Programmatic Assessment Context.

Introduction: Mentors in programmatic assessment support mentees with low-stakes feedback, which often also serves as input for high-stakes decision making. That process potentially causes tensions in the mentor-mentee relationship. This study explored how undergraduate mentors and mentees in health professions education experience combining developmental support and assessment, and what this means for their relationship. Methods: The authors chose a pragmatic qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured vignette-based interviews with 24 mentors and 11 mentees that included learners from medicine and the biomedical sciences. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: How participants combined developmental support and assessment varied. In some mentor-mentee relationships it worked well, in others it caused tensions. Tensions were also created by unintended consequences of design decisions at the program level. Dimensions impacted by experienced tensions were: relationship quality, dependence, trust, and nature and focus of mentoring conversations. Mentors and mentees mentioned applying various strategies to alleviate tensions: transparency and expectation management, distinguishing between developmental support and assessment, and justifying assessment responsibility. Discussion: Combining the responsibility for developmental support and assessment within an individual worked well in some mentor-mentee relationships, but caused tensions in others. On the program level, clear decisions should be made regarding the design of programmatic assessment: what is the program of assessment and how are responsibilities divided between all involved? If tensions arise, mentors and mentees can try to alleviate these, but continuous mutual calibration of expectations between mentors and mentees remains of key importance.

Opening the black box of school-wide student wellbeing programmes: a critical narrative review informed by activity theory.

PURPOSE: Medical schools have a duty of care to support student wellbeing but there is little guidance on how to translate this mandate into practice. Often schools focus on implementing and reporting individual-level interventions which typically only address one aspect of wellbeing. Conversely, less attention has been paid to holistic school-wide approaches towards student wellbeing that address multiple wellbeing dimensions. Thus, this review sought to improve our understanding of how support is mediated within such school-wide wellbeing programmes. METHOD: This critical narrative review was conducted in two stages. First, the authors searched several key databases for papers published up to 25th May 2021, using a systematic search strategy and TREND checklist to guide our data extraction process. We later expanded our search to include literature published from the original date to 20th May 2023. Second, the identified articles were critically analysed using activity theory as a theoretical lens to aid explanation. RESULTS: We found school-wide wellbeing programmes emphasize social connectivity and building a sense of community. Tutors take a key role in the activity of supporting students' wellbeing. We mapped out the activity system components to describe the complexity of this tutor role. This analysis illustrated: tensions and contradictions in the system which may open up opportunities for change; the importance of context for influencing how system components interact; and that students' trust underpins the whole activity system. CONCLUSIONS: Our review shines a light into the black-box of holistic school-wide wellbeing programmes. We identified that tutors play a key role in wellbeing systems but confidentiality is a recurring tension which may jeopardise a wellbeing system. The time has come to investigate these systems in more detail, embracing and exploring the role of context at the same time as looking for common threads.

Challenges, coping and support during student placement abroad: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During placements abroad, healthcare students are confronted with different personal and professional challenges, related to participation in practice. This study investigates when and how students respond to such challenges, and which coping and support mechanisms students use to overcome these. METHODS: Twenty-five international students shared their experiences about physiotherapy placement in The Netherlands. Using a critical incident technique, we asked participants to recall events where participation was affected by an unforeseen situation, in or outside the clinic. Further, we explored students' strategies of seeking support within their social network to overcome individual challenges. Two researchers applied thematic analysis to the interview data, following an iterative approach. Team discussions supported focused direction of data collection and analysis, before conceptualizing results. RESULTS: Participants described a wide range of challenges. The scope and impact level of challenges varied widely, including intercultural differences, language barriers and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, students' personal context and wellbeing. Mechanisms employed by students to overcome these challenges depended on the type of event (personal or professional), making purposeful use of their available network. CONCLUSION: Students involve clinical staff, peers, family and friends during placement abroad, to make deliberate use of their support network to overcome challenges in participation, whereas the academic network remains distant. Findings may help reflect on the roles and responsibilities of academic staff and other professionals involved with placements abroad. Healthcare programmes should ensure support before, during and after placement is within students' reach.

Upward Feedback: Exploring Learner Perspectives on Giving Feedback to their Teachers.

Introduction: Feedback from learners is known to be an important motivator for medical teachers, but it can be de-motivating if delivered poorly, leaving teachers frustrated and uncertain. Research has identified challenges learners face in providing upward feedback, but has not explored how challenges influence learners' goals and approaches to giving feedback. This study explored learner perspectives on providing feedback to teachers to advance understanding of how to optimize upward feedback quality. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 learners from the MD program at the University of British Columbia. Applying an interpretive description methodology, interviews continued until data sufficiency was achieved. Iterative analysis accounted for general trends across seniority, site of training, age and gender as well as individual variations. Findings: Learners articulated well-intentioned goals in relation to upward feedback (e.g., to encourage effective teaching practices). However, conflicting priorities such as protecting one's image created tensions leading to feedback that was discordant with teaching quality. Several factors, including the number of feedback requests learners face and whether learners think their feedback is meaningful mediated the extent to which upward feedback goals or competing goals were enacted. Discussion: Our findings offer a nuanced understanding of the complexities that influence learners' approaches to upward feedback when challenges arise. In particular, goal conflicts make it difficult for learners to contribute to teacher support through upward feedback. Efforts to encourage the quality of upward feedback should begin with reducing competition between goals by addressing factors that mediate goal prioritization.

Trainees' perceptions of being allowed to fail in clinical training: A sense-making model.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical supervisors allow trainees to fail during clinical situations when trainee learning outweighs concerns for patient safety. Trainees perceive failure as both educationally valuable and emotionally draining; however, the nuance of supervised failures has not been researched from the trainee perspective. This study explored trainees' awareness and their experience of failure and allowed failure to understand those events in-depth. METHODS: We interviewed 15 postgraduate trainees from nine teaching sites in Europe and Canada. Participants were a purposive sample, representing 1-10 years of clinical training in various specialties. Consistent with constructivist grounded theory, data collection and analysis were iterative, supporting theoretical sampling to explore themes. RESULTS: Trainees reported that failure was a common, valuable, and emotional experience. They perceived that supervisors allowed failure, but they reported never having it explicitly confirmed or discussed. Therefore, trainees tried to make sense of these events on their own. If they interpreted a failure as allowed by the supervisor, trainees sought to ascertain supervisory intentions. They described situations where they judged supervisor's intentions to be constructive or destructive. DISCUSSION: Our results confirm that trainees perceive their failures as valuable learning opportunities. In the absence of explicit conversations with supervisors, trainees tried to make sense of failures themselves. When trainees judge that they have been allowed to fail, their interpretation of the event is coloured by their attribution of supervisor intentions. Perceived intentions might impact the educational benefit of the experience. In order to support trainees' sense-making, we suggest that supervisory conversations during and after failure events should use more explicit language to discuss failures and explain supervisory intentions.

Pharmacist trainees narrow scope of interprofessional collaboration and communication in hospital practice.

Early curricular exposure to interprofessional education (IPE) is intended to acclimatize health professional trainees to shared-care in the practice settings they will ultimately join. However, IPE activities typically reside outside actual organizational and social systems in which interprofessional care is delivered. We aimed to explore how pharmacist trainees experience collaborator and communicator competency roles during team-based workplace-based learning. Participants maintained written diaries reflecting on interprofessional collaboration and communication during an eight-week hospital clerkship. Diary entries and transcripts from semi-structured follow-up interviews were analyzed from the social constructivist perspective using reflective thematic analysis. Participant accounts of on-ward activities represented most collaborator and communicator roles outlined in pharmacy and interprofessional competency frameworks, but were predominantly between the pharmacist trainee and physicians. Pharmacist trainees did not routinely engage with other health professions on a daily basis. Additionally, reported encounters with other team members were typically information exchanges and not episodes of authentic interdependent or shared care. Interactions were almost completely devoid of perceived interpersonal or role conflict. These findings offer insight into how pharmacist trainees perceive and develop competencies for team-based care. Further work is required to understand how such limited scope of interprofessional communication and collaboration might ultimately impair quality patient care.

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring.

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor. METHODS: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements. RESULTS: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.

INTRODUCTION: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. METHODS: The authors followed a five-step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. RESULTS: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real-world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. DISCUSSION: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation.

Early career experiences of international medical program graduates: An international, longitudinal, mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly medical students pursue medical education abroad. Graduates from International Medical Programs (IMPs) practice globally, yet how to prepare students for an unknown international environment is complex. Following IMP graduates throughout their early careers, this study offers insights into gaps in current undergraduate education. METHODS: In this international, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, 188 graduates from seven IMPs completed baseline surveys on career choice and job preparedness. Forty-two participants completed follow-up until three years after graduation. Nine graduates participated in semi-structured interviews on individual experiences and the evolution of their perspectives. The multiphase, sequential design allowed data collected at baseline to inform further data collection instruments. RESULTS: Two typical student profiles emerged. The first depicts a student who, despite the challenges of studying abroad, pursues a medical degree 'anyhow', with a common aim of practicing in their home country. The other deliberately selects an IMP while envisaging an international career. Two years after graduation, the majority (> 70%) of our participants were practicing in a country other than their country of training. They reported challenges around licensing, the job application process and health system familiarization. Participants' experiences point towards potential curriculum adaptations to facilitate cross-border transitions, including career guidance, networking and entrance exam preparation. DISCUSSION: IMP graduates lack support in practical aspects of career orientation and international exposure. Most IMPs essentially prepare their graduates for a career elsewhere. Gaps and challenges that IMP graduates experience in this cross-border career transition entail a responsibility for preparation and guidance that is currently lacking in IMP curricula.

Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education.

PURPOSE: To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go. METHODS: Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps. RESULTS: Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors. DISCUSSION: This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data.

How medical students co-regulate their learning in clinical clerkships: a social network study.

BACKGROUND: Self-regulated learning is a key competence to engage in lifelong learning. Research increasingly acknowledges that medical students in clerkships need others to regulate their learning. The concept of "co-regulated learning" captures this act of regulating one's learning by interacting with others. To effectively cultivate such skills in students, we need to increase our understanding of co-regulated learning. This study aimed to identify the purposes for which students in different phases of clinical training engage others in their networks to regulate their learning. METHODS: In this social network study, we administered a questionnaire to 403 medical students during clinical clerkships (65.5% response rate). The questionnaire probed into the composition of students' co-regulatory networks and the purpose for which they engaged others in specified self-regulated learning activities. We calculated the proportion of students that engaged others in their networks for each regulatory activity. Additionally, we conducted ANOVAs to examine whether first-, second-, and third-year students differed in how they used their networks to support self-regulation. RESULTS: Students used others within their co-regulatory networks to support a range of self-regulated learning activities. Whom students engaged, and the purpose of engagement, seemed to shift as students progressed through clinical training. Over time, the proportion of students engaging workplace supervisors to discuss learning goals, learning strategies, self-reflections and self-evaluations increased, whereas the proportion of students engaging peers to discuss learning strategies and how to work on learning goals in the workplace decreased. Of all purposes for which students engaged others measured, discussing self-reflections and self-evaluations were consistently among the ones most frequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the notion that medical students' regulation of learning is grounded in social interactions within co-regulatory networks students construct during clerkships. Findings elucidate the extent to which students enact self-regulatory learning within their co-regulatory networks and how their co-regulatory learning behaviors develop over time. Explicating the relevance of interactions within co-regulatory networks might help students and supervisors to purposefully engage in meaningful co-regulatory interactions. Additionally, co-regulatory interactions may assist students in regulating their learning in clinical workplaces as well as in honing their self-regulated learning skills.

Relationships between medical students' co-regulatory network characteristics and self-regulated learning: a social network study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent conceptualizations of self-regulated learning acknowledge the importance of co-regulation, i.e., students' interactions with others in their networks to support self-regulation. Using a social network approach, the aim of this study is to explore relationships between characteristics of medical students' co-regulatory networks, perceived learning opportunities, and self-regulated learning. METHODS: The authors surveyed 403 undergraduate medical students during their clinical clerkships (response rate 65.5%). Using multiple regression analysis, structural equation modelling techniques, and analysis of variance, the authors explored relationships between co-regulatory network characteristics (network size, network diversity, and interaction frequency), students' perceptions of learning opportunities in the workplace setting, and self-reported self-regulated learning. RESULTS: Across all clerkships, data showed positive relationships between tie strength and self-regulated learning (ß = 0.095, p < 0.05) and between network size and tie strength (ß = 0.530, p < 0.001), and a negative relationship between network diversity and tie strength (ß = -0.474, p < 0.001). Students' perceptions of learning opportunities showed positive relationships with both self-regulated learning (ß = 0.295, p < 0.001) and co-regulatory network size (ß = 0.134, p < 0.01). Characteristics of clerkship contexts influenced both co-regulatory network characteristics (size and tie strength) and relationships between network characteristics, self-regulated learning, and students' perceptions of learning opportunities. DISCUSSION: The present study reinforces the importance of co-regulatory networks for medical students' self-regulated learning during clinical clerkships. Findings imply that supporting development of strong networks aimed at frequent co-regulatory interactions may enhance medical students' self-regulated learning in challenging clinical learning environments. Social network approaches offer promising ways of further understanding and conceptualising self- and co-regulated learning in clinical workplaces.

Putting self-regulated learning in context: Integrating self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning.

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self-regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high-quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice.

Assessing trainee performance: ensuring learner control, supporting development, and maximizing assessment moments.

In this article, the authors provide practical guidance for frontline supervisors' efforts to assess trainee performance. They focus on three areas. First, they argue the importance of promoting learner control in the assessment process, noting that providing learners agency and control can shift the stakes of assessment from high to low and promote a safe environment that facilitates learning. Second, they posit that assessment should be used to support continued development by promoting a relational partnership between trainees and supervisors. This partnership allows supervisors to reinforce desirable aspects of performance, provide real-time support for deficient areas of performance, and sequence learning with the appropriate amount of scaffolding to push trainees from competence (what they can do alone) to capability (what they are able to do with support). Finally, they advocate the importance of optimizing the use of written comments and direct observation while also recognizing that performance is interdependent in efforts to maximize assessment moments.Conclusion: Using best practices in trainee assessment can help trainees take next steps in their development in a learner-centered partnership with clinical supervisors. What is Known: • Many pediatricians are asked to assess the performance of medical students and residents they work with but few have received formal training in assessment. What is New: • This article presents evidence-based best practices for assessing trainees, including giving trainees agency in the assessment process and focusing on helping trainees take next steps in their development.

I, we and they: A linguistic and narrative exploration of the authorship process.

INTRODUCTION: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. METHOD: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

'It depends': The complexity of allowing residents to fail from the perspective of clinical supervisors.

PURPOSE: Clinical supervisors acknowledge that they sometimes allow trainees to fail for educational purposes. What remains unknown is how supervisors decide whether to allow failure in a specific instance. Given the high stakes nature of these decisions, such knowledge is necessary to inform conversations about this educationally powerful and clinically delicate phenomenon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 supervisors participated in semi-structured interviews to explore how they view their decision to allow failure in clinical training. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, the iteratively collected data and analysis were informed by theoretical sampling. RESULTS: Recalling instances when they considered allowing residents to fail for educational purposes, supervisors characterized these as intuitive, in-the-moment decisions. In their post hoc reflections, they could articulate four factors that they believed influenced these decisions: patient, supervisor, trainee, and environmental factors. While patient factors were reported as primary, the factors appear to interact in dynamic and nonlinear ways, such that supervisory decisions about allowing failure may not be predictable from one situation to the next. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical supervisors make many decisions in the moment, and allowing resident failure appears to be one of them. Upon reflection, supervisors understand their decisions to be shaped by recurring factors in the clinical training environment. The complex interplay among these factors renders predicting such decisions difficult, if not impossible. However, having a language for these dynamic factors can support clinical educators to have meaningful discussions about this high-stakes educational strategy.

Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.

PURPOSE: Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. METHODS: Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended "reject," we coded for alignment between reviewers' comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers' impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending "reject," the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%). CONCLUSION: Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.