Abstract
Objective
Study design
Results
Conclusions
Keywords
Context statement
Introduction
Pan-European training curriculum in Obstetrics & Gynaecology [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjQ8cvw3v7hAhURJ1AKHRTSDgEQFjACegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uems.eu%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0004%2F64399%2FUEMS-2018.18-European-Training-Requirements-OBGYN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0hJwkzIORfbRdYcAnRLubj.
Pan-European training curriculum in Obstetrics & Gynaecology [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjQ8cvw3v7hAhURJ1AKHRTSDgEQFjACegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uems.eu%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0004%2F64399%2FUEMS-2018.18-European-Training-Requirements-OBGYN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0hJwkzIORfbRdYcAnRLubj.
Better Education for Obsetrics and Gynaecology [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiN1duD3f7hAhUN-6QKHW3dA9EQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.knmg.nl%2Fweb%2Ffile%3Fuuid%3Dbea1113c-c9bf-44b5-9c35-05da749b1162%26owner%3D5c945405-d6ca-4deb-aa16-7af2088aa173%26contentid%3D2003%26elementid%3D153285&usg=AOvVaw11RY82DwDltaOQEPCRabCn.
Materials and method
Survey list
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Selection of the validation panel
Validation procedure
Ethics approval
Results
Validation panel
Norway | Sweden | United Kingdom | Belgium | Germany | Oceania | United States | Overall | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N = 24 | N = 42 | N = 30 | N = 54 | N = 18 | N = 14 | N = 10 | N = 192 | |
Gender | ||||||||
Woman | 20 (83.3) | 34 (81) | 19 (63.3) | 40 (74.1) | 12 (66.7) | 8 (57.1) | 9 (90) | 142 (74.0) |
Man | 4 (16.7) | 8 (19) | 11 (36.7) | 14 (25.9) | 6 (33.3) | 6 (42.9) | 1 (10) | 50 (26.0) |
Current position | ||||||||
Resident | 11 (45.8) | 30 (71.4) | 13 (43.3) | 44 (81.5) | 8 (44.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 106 (55.2) |
Medical doctor | 9 (37.5) | 9 (21.4) | 12 (40.0) | 8 (14.8) | 7 (38.9) | 10 (71.4) | 10 (100) | 65 (33.8) |
Other* | 4 (16.7)1 | 3 (7.2)2 | 5 (16.7)3 | 2 (3.7)4 | 3 (16.7)5 | 4 (28.6)6 | 0 (0) | 21 (11.0) |
Workplace | ||||||||
Academic teaching | 20 (83.3) | 36 (85.7) | 18 (60) | 19 (35.2) | 5 (27.8) | 9 (64.3) | 10 (100) | 117 (61.0) |
Non-academic | 4 (16.7) | 6 (14.3) | 8 (26.7) | 34 (63.0) | 11 (61.1) | 5 (35.7) | 0 (0) | 68 (35.4) |
Non-academic non-teaching | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (13.3) | 1 (1.8) | 2 (11.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (3.6) |
Subspecialty | ||||||||
Obstetrics | 6 (25) | 4 (9.5) | 5 (16.7) | 14 (25.9) | 6 (33.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 35 (18.2) |
Fertility | 2 (8.3) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 2 (3.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 6 (3.1) |
Oncology | 3 (12.5) | 1 (2.4) | 2 (6.7) | 5 (9.3) | 3 (16.7) | 5 (35.7) | 1 (10) | 20 (10.4) |
Urogynaecology | 1 (4.2) | 3 (7.1) | 6 (20.0) | 7 (13.0) | 4 (22.2) | 3 (21.4) | 4 (40) | 28 (14.6) |
Benign gynaecology | 3 (12.5) | 4 (9.5) | 4 (13.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (21.4) | 5 (50) | 19 (10.0) |
No subspeciality | 9 (37.5) | 28 (66.7) | 13 (43.3) | 26 (48.1) | 5 (27.8) | 3 (21.4) | 0 (0) | 84 (43.8) |
Rating of anatomical knowledge | ||||||||
Inadequate | 3 (12.5) | 6 (14.3) | 2 (6.7) | 9 (16.7) | 4 (22.2) | 2 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 26 (13.5) |
Adequate | 14 (58.3) | 25 (59.5) | 19 (63.3) | 29 (53.7) | 8 (44.4) | 9 (64.3) | 0 (0) | 104 (54.2) |
Good | 7 (29.2) | 10 (23.8) | 8 (26.7) | 14 (25.9) | 5 (27.8) | 2 (14.3) | 5 (50) | 51 (26.6) |
Excellent | 0 (0) | 1 (2.4) | 1 (33.3) | 2 (3.7) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (7.1) | 5 (50) | 11 (5.7) |
Validation procedure
Difference between the Dutch Delphi and the international validation
Comment
Main findings
Interpretation

Strengths and limitations
Conclusion
Declaration of Competing Interest
Acknowledgements
Details of ethics approval
Funding
References
Garofalo M, Aggarwal R. Competency-based medical education and assessment of training: review of selected national obstetrics and gynaecology curricula. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(7):534-44.e1.
- Transatlantic comparison of the competence of surgeons at the start of their professional career.Br J Surg. 2010; 97: 443-449
- Evaluating obstetrical residency programs using patient outcomes.JAMA. 2009; 302: 1277-1283
- MotiVATIONS FOR AND CHALLENGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL MEDICAL CURRICULA: A scoping review.Acad Med. 2021; 96: 449-459
https://www.who.int/teams/health-workforce/workforcealliance.
Resolution from the European Consensus Conference on Morphological Sciences (Anatomy, Histology and Embryology), held by the European Federation for Experimental Morphology in Bologna, 18th November, 2007.
- European association of urology section of urolithiasis (EULIS) consensus statement on simulation, training, and assessment in urolithiasis.Eur Urol Focus. 2018; 4: 614-620
- Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts.BJU Int. 2015; 116: 93-101
- Guidelines for the organization of headache education in Europe: the headache school.Funct Neurol. 2005; 20: 89-93
- Global curriculum in surgical oncology.Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 1782-1795
Pan-European training curriculum in Obstetrics & Gynaecology [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjQ8cvw3v7hAhURJ1AKHRTSDgEQFjACegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uems.eu%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0004%2F64399%2FUEMS-2018.18-European-Training-Requirements-OBGYN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0hJwkzIORfbRdYcAnRLubj.
Better Education for Obsetrics and Gynaecology [Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiN1duD3f7hAhUN-6QKHW3dA9EQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.knmg.nl%2Fweb%2Ffile%3Fuuid%3Dbea1113c-c9bf-44b5-9c35-05da749b1162%26owner%3D5c945405-d6ca-4deb-aa16-7af2088aa173%26contentid%3D2003%26elementid%3D153285&usg=AOvVaw11RY82DwDltaOQEPCRabCn.
- Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future.Med Educ. 2006; 40: 243-253
- Influences on anatomical knowledge: The complete arguments.Clin Anat (New York, NY). 2014; 27: 296-303
- What do we need to know about anatomy in gynaecology: A Delphi consensus study.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 245: 56-63
- An exploration of the use of simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies.BMC Med Res Method. 2007; 7: 52
- Consensus measurement in Delphi studies.Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012; : 79
- Human anatomy: let the students tell us how to teach.Anatom Sci Educ. 2014; 7: 262-272
- Teaching gross anatomy: an important topic for anatomical congresses and journals?.Surg Radiol Anat. 1994; 16: 1-2
- What impact does anatomy education have on clinical practice?.Clin Anat (New York, NY). 2011; 24: 113-119
- Should we develop a core international curriculum for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery?.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010; 39: S10-S14
Besso J, Bhagwanjee S, Takezawa J, Prayag S, Moreno R. A global view of education and training in critical care medicine. Crit Care Clin. 2006;22(3):539-46, x-xi.
- Knowledge and awareness of and perception towards cardiovascular disease risk in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review.PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0189264
- Factors that influence awareness and treatment of atrial fibrillation in older adults.QJM. 2013; 106: 415-424
- Students' perceptions of anatomy across the undergraduate problem-based learning medical curriculum: a phenomenographical study.BMC Med Educ. 2013; 13: 152
- Radiology education in medical school and residency: the views and needs of program directors.Acad Radiol. 2018; 25: 1333-1343
- How do national specialty groups develop undergraduate guidelines for medical schools, and which are successful? A systematic review.Med Teach. 2017; 39: 1138-1144
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) |
Permitted
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy