Evaluation and impact of leadership development program for physicians in healthcare and medical education: conceptual and pragmatic considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the current state of the evaluation of leader and leadership development programs (LDPs) for physicians and medical learners, identify issues, suggest improvements and propose a framework. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A narrative review of the evaluation of LDPs was performed (English language literature from 2010 to 2024, including peer-reviewed [PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, MedEdPORTAL, PsychInfo, Scopus, Business Source Elite and ERIC] and gray literature). Analysis and synthesis of literature included a critical examination of notions and concepts. FINDINGS: The evidence for the positive impact of leadership development programs is growing. The main issues are a lack of a strategic organizational approach, heavy reliance on one evaluation model with findings predominantly evaluated at lower levels subjectively, lack of rigor including endogeneity issues and limited use of complex far transfer outcomes. Suggestions for improvements include a strategic approach to evaluation with a broader use of other taxonomy-based models and realist and constructivist approaches to evaluation, consideration of outcome clusters of education, training and developmental pathways, utilizing a wider array of methods and integrating findings. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed conceptual approach links individual and organizational outcomes and lower-level program evaluation with "strategic evaluation" using robust evaluation frameworks and a wider array of methods. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This review has critically examined individual outcomes of three modalities - education, training and development. It has emphasized organizational strategy and proposed groups of outcomes and realized benefits that can be utilized in episodic and longitudinal manner using modifications to evaluation design.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".