Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 13;18(7):e0288474.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288474. eCollection 2023.

Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review

Affiliations

Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review

Chandni Pattni et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Purpose: Self-assessment of a physician's performance in both procedure and non-procedural activities can be used to identify their deficiencies to allow for appropriate corrective measures. Physicians are inaccurate in their self-assessments, which may compromise opportunities for self- development. To improve this accuracy, video-based interventions of physicians watching their own performance, an experts' performance or both, have been proposed to inform their self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of video-based interventions targeting improved self-assessment accuracy among physicians.

Materials and methods: The authors performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, EBM reviews, and Scopus databases from inception to August 23, 2022, using combinations of terms for "self-assessment", "video-recording", and "physician". Eligible studies were empirical investigations assessing the effect of video-based interventions on physicians' self-assessment accuracy with a comparison of self-assessment accuracy pre- and post- video intervention. We defined self-assessment accuracy as a "direct comparison between an external evaluator and self-assessment that was quantified using formal statistical analysis". Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted, as variable outcomes precluded a meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 2,376 papers were initially retrieved. Of these, 22 papers were selected for full-text review; a final 9 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Across studies, 240 participants from 5 specialties were represented. Video-based interventions included self-video review (8/9), benchmark video review (3/9), and/or a combination of both types (1/9). Five out of nine studies reported that participants had inaccurate self-assessment at baseline. After the intervention, 5 of 9 studies found a statistically significant improvement in self-assessment accuracy.

Conclusions: Overall, current data suggests video-based interventions can improve self-assessment accuracy. Benchmark video review may enable physicians to improve self-assessment accuracy, especially for those with limited experience performing a particular clinical skill. In contrast, self-video review may be able to provide improvement in self-assessment accuracy for more experience physicians. Future research should use standardized methods of comparison for self-assessment accuracy, such as the Bland-Altman analysis, to facilitate meta-analytic summation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Other disclosures: Rishad Khan has received research grants from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Pendopharm. Samir C. Grover has received research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Takeda, education grants from Janssen, and has equity in Volo Healthcare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart illustrating the identification and selection process for studies included in this meta-analysis.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) risk of bias assessment.

References

    1. Colthart I, Bagnall G, Evans A, Allbutt H, Haig A, Illing J, et al.. The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10. Med Teach. 2008;30: 124–145. doi: 10.1080/01421590701881699 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eva KW, Regehr G. Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda. Acad Med. 2005;80: S46–S54. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sargeant J, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornan T, Eva K, Holmboe E, et al.. The processes and dimensions of informed self-assessment: a conceptual model. Acad Med. 2010;85: 1212–1220. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d85a4e - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of Physician Self-assessment Compared: A Systematic Review. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;296: 1094–1102. - PubMed
    1. Nayar SK, Musto L, Baruah G, Fernandes R, Bharathan R. Self-Assessment of Surgical Skills: A Systematic Review. J Surg Educ. 2020;77: 348–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.09.016 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types