Is postgraduate leadership education a match for the wicked problems of health systems leadership? A critical systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There have been a growing number of leadership education programs for physicians. However, debates about the value and efficacy of leadership education in medicine persist, and there are calls for systematic and critical perspectives on medical leadership development. Here, we review evidence on postgraduate leadership education and discuss findings in relation to contemporary evidence on leadership education and practice. METHOD: We searched multiple databases for papers on postgraduate leadership development programs, published in English between 2007 and 2017. We identified 4,691 papers; 31 papers met the full inclusion criteria. Data regarding curricular content and design, learner demographics, instructional methods, and learning outcomes were abstracted and synthesized. RESULTS: There was modest evidence for effectiveness of programs in influencing knowledge and skills gains in select domains. However, the conceptual underpinnings of the 'leadership' training delivered were often unclear. Contemporary theory and evidence on leadership practice was not widely incorporated in program design. Programs were almost exclusively uni-professional, focused on discrete skill development, and did not address systems-level leadership issues. Broader leadership capacity building strategies were underutilized. A new wave of longitudinal, integrated clinical and leadership programming is observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise questions about persistent preparation-practice gaps in leadership education in medicine. Leadership education needs to evolve to incorporate broader collective capacity building, as well as evidence-informed strategies for leadership development. Barriers to educational reform need to be identified and addressed as educators work to re-orientate education programs to better prepare budding physician leaders for the challenges of health system leadership.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".