Feedback and feedforward methods in medical and higher health education: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Programmatic assessment (PA) in health professions education positions continuous feedback and feedforward as key mechanisms for competence development. Feedback focuses on prior performance, whereas feedforward provides future-oriented guidance that supports agency and self-regulated learning. Although their educational value is widely acknowledged, implementation remains challenging and often emphasises performance outcomes rather than action and reflection. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to address the research question: "How are feedback and feedforward methods operationalised within assessment situations in medical and higher health professions education? The ECLIPSE framework (Expectation, Client group, Location, Impact, Professionals, Service) guided question formulation and searches in Embase, ERIC and PubMed. Articles published from 2015 up to February 2026 were included. Data were synthesized using descriptive and thematic synthesis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: Database searches identified 3723 records. After deduplication and screening, 91 full texts were assessed, of which 14 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies involved medical students. Five methodological families were identified: expert feedback, self-feedback, peer feedback, video-based feedback, and feedforward. Expert and video-based approaches were consistently associated with performance gains, whereas self- and peer feedback supported reflection and learner agency but showed variable outcomes. Feedforward was rarely explicitly described, although several interventions incorporated forward-looking elements targeting performance. CONCLUSION: Current assessment practices rely on a limited set of recurring methods, with feedforward, predominantly focused on performance, often remaining implicit. Making feedforward explicit and actionable within assessment cycles might strengthen competence development, promote learner agency, and support continuous improvement in PA context.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354742
Primary Topic
Innovations in Medical Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Feedback and feedforward methods in medical and higher health education: A scoping review

Evert Zinzen, Angela Blasimann, Slavko Rogan, Theresa Himmelsbach et al.
PLoS ONE
Innovations in Medical Education
article

Feedback and feedforward methods in medical and higher health education: A scoping review

Evert Zinzen, Angela Blasimann, Slavko Rogan, Theresa Himmelsbach, Iris Sterkele, Irène Koenig, Jill Vögelin
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Programmatic assessment (PA) in health professions education positions continuous feedback and feedforward as key mechanisms for competence development. Feedback focuses on prior performance, whereas feedforward provides future-oriented guidance that supports agency and self-regulated learning. Although their educational value is widely acknowledged, implementation remains challenging and often emphasises performance outcomes rather than action and reflection. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to address the research question: "How are feedback and feedforward methods operationalised within assessment situations in medical and higher health professions education? The ECLIPSE framework (Expectation, Client group, Location, Impact, Professionals, Service) guided question formulation and searches in Embase, ERIC and PubMed. Articles published from 2015 up to February 2026 were included. Data were synthesized using descriptive and thematic synthesis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: Database searches identified 3723 records. After deduplication and screening, 91 full texts were assessed, of which 14 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies involved medical students. Five methodological families were identified: expert feedback, self-feedback, peer feedback, video-based feedback, and feedforward. Expert and video-based approaches were consistently associated with performance gains, whereas self- and peer feedback supported reflection and learner agency but showed variable outcomes. Feedforward was rarely explicitly described, although several interventions incorporated forward-looking elements targeting performance. CONCLUSION: Current assessment practices rely on a limited set of recurring methods, with feedforward, predominantly focused on performance, often remaining implicit. Making feedforward explicit and actionable within assessment cycles might strengthen competence development, promote learner agency, and support continuous improvement in PA context.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(7)
Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Innovations in Medical Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.