Impact of an educational supervision mechanism on blended teaching outcomes in general practitioner transfer training: a comparative study

Huaying Liu; Qun Liang; Li Hui Meng; Le’an Pan; Guan Feng Qin; Jun Qiang Huang; Yan Liu

doi:10.21142/mecp.2026.1.3.e035

Authors

Huaying Liu Department of Medicine, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0230-537X
Qun Liang Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning, China.
Li Hui Meng Department of Medicine, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China.
Le’an Pan Department of Medicine, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China.
Guan Feng Qin Department of Medicine, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China.
Jun Qiang Huang Department of Medicine, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China.
Yan Liu Vocational Skills Training Institute, Guangxi Health Science College, Nanning, China.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21142/mecp.2026.1.3.e035

Keywords:

Clinical Supervision, General Practitioners, Training Transfer, Comparative Study

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a blended teaching model under an educational supervision mechanism in general practitioner (GP) transfer training. Methods: A non-randomized, historical cohort study was conducted involving 147 trainees. The intervention group (2025 cohort, n = 70) was managed under an educational supervision mechanism, in which a supervision team monitored and evaluated teaching quality throughout the training process, while the historical control group (2024 cohort, n = 77) received conventional blended training without formal supervision. Theoretical assessment scores were collected for both groups, while questionnaire satisfaction responses were gathered only from the intervention group. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for pre-training scores was used to compare post-training outcomes. Results: The intervention group achieved significantly higher overall theoretical assessment scores compared with the historical control group (median [IQR]: 92 [88- 95] vs. 90 [80.5-95]; p = 0.044; rank biserial correlation [r = 0.16]). After adjusting for baseline performance via ANCOVA, the adjusted marginal mean post-training score was 90.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.58-92.60) in the intervention group and 87.23 (95% CI: 85.32-89.15) in the historical control group, with a significant difference (F = 5.706, exact p = 0.018, partial η2 = 0.038). In addition, 84.29% of trainees in the intervention group reported very satisfied (score = 5) of the model. However, only 75.71% considered the training content fully met daily clinical demands. Conclusions: Given the limitations of the single-center historical cohort design and potential temporal confounding, these findings should be interpreted with caution, although they suggest potential for broader application in medical education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Chen S, Sam XH, Soong A, Car LT, Lian S, Smith HE. Recruitment of general practitioners in China: a scoping review of strategies and challenges. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):249. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01854-0.

2. Yang L, Cheng J. Analysis of inequality in the distribution of general practitioners in China: evidence from 2012 to 2018. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2022;23:e59. doi: 10.1017/ S1463423622000408.

3. Luo F, Chen M, Chen Y, Huang H, Zhan W, Chen L, et al. Reflecting on the Implementation of United Kingdom (UK) General Practitioner Training Models in China: Highlights From a Train-the-Trainer Pilot Program. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025;16:981-991. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S510602.

4. Shi J, Du Q, Gong X, Chi C, Huang J, Yu W, et al. Is training policy for general practitioners in China charting the right path forward? a mixed methods analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e038173. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038173.

5. Khan UI, Farazdaq H, Naseem A, Suleman W, Saleem S, Qadir MA, et al. Evaluation of FamMed essentials: a blended-learning program for capacity building of general practitioners in Pakistan. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05069-y.

6. Kyne K, Barrett A. Educational change in a crisis: what has changed and what is here to stay in undergraduate teaching and learning in General Practice. Rural Remote Health. 2023;23(1):7875. doi: 10.22605/RRH7875.

7. Zhao YM, Liu SS, Wang J. Application of data-driven blended online-offline teaching in medicinal chemistry for pharmacy students: a randomized comparison. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):738. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05701-x.

8. Baker MJ, Maggio LA, Dorris CS, Uijtdehaage S, Soh M. Clinical supervision in medical education: A citation analysis. Med Teach. 2024;46(4):505-511. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2257375.

9. Ahmady S, Minouei MS. Explanation of medical students’ experiences of educational clinical supervision: A qualitative study. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:12. doi: 10.4103/jehp. jehp_620_20.

10. Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. 2007;77(1):81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.

11. Samir AA, Abdelsayed K, Abdelmonsef Ahmed HA, Almahdy Mohamed A, Bahr AR, Al-Bawah N, et al. A validated Arabic version of the clinical learning evaluation questionnaire for medical students and interns. Med Educ Online. 2026;31(1):2632522. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2026.2632522.

12. Zhao N, Gu M, Li J, Zhang H, Yang J. Factors influencing contracting of residents with family doctors in China: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24(1):213. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10606-y.

13. Tie H, Luo Y, Chen D. Thinkings on the reform of medical education system in China. Med Educ Online. 2024;29(1):2302677. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2024.2302677.

14. Lian S, Chen Q, Yao M, Chi C, Fetters MD. Training Pathways to Working as a General Practitioner in China. Fam Med. 2019;51(3):262-270. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2019.329090.

15. Jiang Z, Wu H, Cheng H, Wang W, Xie A, Fitzgerald SR. Twelve tips for teaching medical students online under COVID-19. Med Educ Online. 2021;26(1):1854066. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1854066.

16. Passi V. The importance of mentoring during educational supervision. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5(4):195-6. doi: 10.1007/ s40037-016-0291-3.

17. Julyan TE. Educational supervision and the impact of workplace-based assessments: a survey of psychiatry trainees and their supervisors. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:51. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-9-51.

18. Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Boudreau JD, Snell L, Steinert Y. A schematic representation of the construction of professional identity in medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(6):718-722. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000700.

19. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x.