Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol

Lucia Weber; Jodie Freeman; Stefan Gysin; Jonas Florin; Anders Sondén; Dominik Schaer; Sissel Guttormsen

doi:10.12688/f1000research.179726.1

Home Browse Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Lucia Weber ^1,2, Jodie Freeman¹, Stefan Gysin³, [...] Jonas Florin³, Anders Sondén⁴, Dominik Schaer^2,5, Sissel Guttormsen¹

Lucia Weber ^1,2, Jodie Freeman¹, [...] Stefan Gysin³, Jonas Florin³, Anders Sondén⁴, Dominik Schaer^2,5, Sissel Guttormsen¹

PUBLISHED 04 May 2026

Author details Author details

¹ 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 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

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 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1) First published: 04 May 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1) Latest published: 04 May 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1)

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.

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Population (Target Group of Coaching)	- Undergraduate medical students	- Postgraduate medical students; residents; physicians - Students from other disciplines such as nursing, veterinary medicine, biomedicine - Medical faculty - Patients
Setting	- Medical schools or universities with a medical curriculum - worldwide	- Commercial coaching
Intervention	- 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
Type of Literature	Peer-reviewed academic articles	- Grey literature - Books and book chapters
Study Design	- 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)
Focus/Content of the Article	- 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
Time Period	No time restriction
Language	English and German	Other Languages
Availability	Full text available	Full text unavailable

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.

Table 2. Search string used in Ovid MEDLINE.

Line	Search terms
1	coach*.mp.
2	schools, medical/
3	education, medical, undergraduate/
4	((student* or school* or undergraduat) adj5 medic).mp.
5	2 or 3 or 4
6	1 and 5
7	limit 6 to (english or german)

Table 3. Search results.

Database	Number of articles found
Medline (Ovid)	626
Embase (Ovid)	1031
PsycINFO (Ovid)	247
ERIC (Ovid)	90
Education Research Complete (EBSCOhost)	162

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. 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. 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 (10–20%) 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 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.

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. C-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.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 May 2026

Author details Author details

¹ 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

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 04 May 2026, 15:663

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1

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.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Weber L, Freeman J, Gysin S et al. Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2026, 15:663 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.179726.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 04 May 2026

Views

1

Reviewer Report 12 Jun 2026

Marcelo Garcia Dieguez, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.198269.r487628

Summary of the article : The article present a protocol for an integrative review of coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education. The protocol follows Whittemore and Knafl's five-step framework and aims to synthesise literature on structural characteristics, goals, and educational strategies ... Continue reading

Summary of the article : The article present a protocol for an integrative review of coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education. The protocol follows Whittemore and Knafl's five-step framework and aims to synthesise literature on structural characteristics, goals, and educational strategies of such programmes. The review addresses three focused research questions . The search has already been conducted across five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete), yielding 2,156 total records and 1,400 unique records after deduplication Quality appraisal will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for empirical studies and the JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion for non-empirical work. Synthesis will combine descriptive and thematic analysis.

Cooments: Genewrally method are well-described, and the search string for MEDLINE ias well); The two-stage screening process (title/abstract then full-text) is described. and a pilot test of 20 records is mentioned
The data extraction domains are also enumerated in detail; quality appraisal tolls are mentiooed and are appropriately selected.
Some atention is needed to improve the paper.The protocol describes that two reviewers will screen independently and the process for disagreements resolution is also describer, but no mention is made of calculating or reporting inter-rater reliability. The protocol states that "10–20%" of studies will be cross-checked by a second reviewer. Maybe this range is broad and tshould be s specify the exact percentage. About the thematic analysis, the authors mention some autors to follow as guidance for the process, but do not specify whether they will use inductive or deductive coding, or how themes will be generated and agreed upon between reviewers. Even brief clarification would strengthen replicability. Finally the authors acknowledge that distinguishing coaching from mentoring is challenging and describe a reflexive diary to document decisions. It would strengthen the protocol to briefly describe any decision rules that will guide this distinction in ambiguous cases. Short definitions around similarities and differences in the context of the review could also facilitate recplicability.

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

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 May 2026

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1
Version 1 04 May 26	read

Marcelo Garcia Dieguez, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

1 Views

12 Jun 2026 | for Version 1

Marcelo Garcia Dieguez, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina

1 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Summary of the article : The article present a protocol for an integrative review of coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education. The protocol follows Whittemore and Knafl's five-step framework and aims to synthesise literature on structural characteristics, goals, and educational strategies of such programmes. The review addresses three focused research questions . The search has already been conducted across five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Research Complete), yielding 2,156 total records and 1,400 unique records after deduplication Quality appraisal will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for empirical studies and the JBI Checklist for Text and Opinion for non-empirical work. Synthesis will combine descriptive and thematic analysis.

Cooments: Genewrally method are well-described, and the search string for MEDLINE ias well); The two-stage screening process (title/abstract then full-text) is described. and a pilot test of 20 records is mentioned
The data extraction domains are also enumerated in detail; quality appraisal tolls are mentiooed and are appropriately selected.
Some atention is needed to improve the paper.The protocol describes that two reviewers will screen independently and the process for disagreements resolution is also describer, but no mention is made of calculating or reporting inter-rater reliability. The protocol states that "10–20%" of studies will be cross-checked by a second reviewer. Maybe this range is broad and tshould be s specify the exact percentage. About the thematic analysis, the authors mention some autors to follow as guidance for the process, but do not specify whether they will use inductive or deductive coding, or how themes will be generated and agreed upon between reviewers. Even brief clarification would strengthen replicability. Finally the authors acknowledge that distinguishing coaching from mentoring is challenging and describe a reflexive diary to document decisions. It would strengthen the protocol to briefly describe any decision rules that will guide this distinction in ambiguous cases. Short definitions around similarities and differences in the context of the review could also facilitate recplicability.

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

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 11. Whittemore R, Knafl K: The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005; 52(5): 546–553. Publisher Full Text

[12] 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] 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] 14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; n71.

[15] 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] 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] 17. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Weber L, Freeman J, Gysin S, et al.: Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review. Open Science Framework. 2026.

Coaching programmes in undergraduate medical education: An integrative review protocol

Abstract

Abstract*

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Keywords

Introduction

Objective

Research questions

Methods and analysis

Eligibility criteria

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Data sources

Search strategy

Table 2. Search string used in Ovid MEDLINE.

Table 3. Search results.

Selection process

Data extraction

Quality appraisal

Data analysis and synthesis

Dissemination*

Study status*

Ethical considerations*

Data availability*

Underlying data*

Extended data

Reporting guidelines*

References*

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated