ObjectivesResearch has suggested beneficial effects of self‐regulated learning (SRL) for medical students' and residents' workplace‐based learning. Ideally, learners go through a cyclic process of setting learning goals, choosing learning strategies and assessing progress towards goals. A clear overview of medical students' and residents' successful key strategies, influential factors and effective interventions to stimulate SRL in the workplace is missing. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of and a theoretical base for effective SRL strategies of medical students and residents for their learning in the clinical context.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Association for Medical Education in Europe. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Cochrane Library from January 1992 to July 2016. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Two reviewers independently performed the review process and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. A total of 3341 publications were initially identified and 18 were included in the review.ResultsWe found diversity in the use of SRL strategies by medical students and residents, which is linked to individual (goal setting), contextual (time pressure, patient care and supervision) and social (supervisors and peers) factors. Three types of intervention were identified (coaching, learning plans and supportive tools). However, all interventions focused on goal setting and monitoring and none on supporting self‐evaluation.ConclusionsSelf‐regulated learning in the clinical environment is a complex process that results from an interaction between person and context. Future research should focus on unravelling the process of SRL in the clinical context and specifically on how medical students and residents assess their progress towards goals.

BackgroundStudies have shown that medical students experience the transition between preclinical and clinical training as a stressful period. They are generally frustrated by their inability to apply their knowledge to solve clinical problems in practice. Preclinical patient contacts may offer a solution to this 'shock of practice.' We studied how students who have had preclinical patient contacts perceive the transition from preclinical to clinical training and, more specifically, how they value these early patient contacts as preparation for learning in clinical practice.MethodsA purposive sample of 21 students participated in three focus groups which met twice during their first weeks of clinical clerkships. The interviews were recorded and transcribed literally. Qualitative content analysis of the transcriptions was performed.ResultsAccording to the students, working in clinical practice was enjoyable, motivated them to study and helped them to develop non-analytical reasoning skills. The students experienced stress due to increased working hours and work load, uncertainty as to what was expected of them and self-perceived lack of knowledge. They did not experience a major gap between the preclinical and clinical phase and felt well prepared for the clerkships. The preclinical patient contacts were considered to be instrumental in this.ConclusionsEarly patient contacts seem to ameliorate the shock of practice and prepare students for clinical work. The problems mentioned by the students in this study are mainly related to the socialisation process. The results of this study have to be validated by quantitative research.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to inform couples’ reproductive choice, preferably before conception. As part of an implementation study in which trained general practitioners (GPs) offered a population-based ECS couple-test, we evaluated the feasibility of the test-offer and degree of participant informed choice (IC). Trained GPs from nine practices in the northern Netherlands invited 4295 female patients aged 18–40 to take part in couple-based ECS. Inclusion criteria were having a male partner, planning for children and not being pregnant. We evaluated the feasibility of the organizational aspects, GP competence and the content of the pre-test counselling. Participant satisfaction, evaluation of pre-test counselling and degree of IC were measured using a longitudinal survey. We explored GP experiences and their views on future implementation through semi-structured interviews. 130 consultations took place. All participating GPs were assessed by genetic professionals to be competent to conduct pre-test counselling. Most (63/108 (58%)) consultations took place within the planned 20 min (median 20, IQR 18–28). GPs considered couples’ prior knowledge level an important determinant of consultation length. 91% of patients were (very) satisfied with the GP counselling. After pre-test counselling, 231/237(97%) participants had sufficient knowledge and 206/231(88%) had a positive attitude and proceeded with testing. Our pilot demonstrates that offering couple-based ECS through trained and motivated GPs is feasible. Future large-scale implementation requires a well-informed general public and a discussion about appropriate reimbursement for GPs and health care coverage for couples. Providing (more) test information pre-appointment may help reduce average consultation time.