Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40527607›Full record

SynthesisBMJ leader2025

Leadership training in healthcare: a systematic umbrella review.

Juliette Phillipson, Alexandra Cardoso Pinto, Harry Kingsley-Smith, Nick Krachler, Gerry McGivern, Oscar Lyons

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ leader, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Juliette PhillipsonThrum Leadership Ltd, Oxford, UK ju.phillipson@hotmail.com oscar.lyons@gtc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0006-2099-7487
Alexandra Cardoso PintoOxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School (OUCAGS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Harry Kingsley-SmithPembroke College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nick KrachlerKing's Business School, King's College London, London, UK.
Gerry McGivernPublic Service Management and Organisation, King's College London, London, UK.
Oscar LyonsThrum Leadership Ltd, Oxford, UK ju.phillipson@hotmail.com oscar.lyons@gtc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5809-7173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of effective clinical leadership has been reflected in an increase in leadership development programmes. However, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the optimal structure, content and evaluation of such programmes. This review synthesised evidence from reviews of leadership development interventions for healthcare professionals published prior to October 2024, including content, methods, evaluation strategies and impact. Title, abstract and full-text screening were conducted in duplicate by two reviewers. Data extraction was piloted by two reviewers and conducted by a single reviewer. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool by a single reviewer, with generative artificial intelligence serving as the second reviewer. 86 systematic and non-systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Regarding educational methods, leadership training effectiveness was associated with experiential learning, mixed-methods approaches, coaching or mentoring, longitudinal designs, goal-setting, and 360-degree feedback. Group learning and interprofessional education were noted for fostering teamwork. Programmes tailored to participants' needs and organisational contexts showed better outcomes. Content reported to be effective included interpersonal skills, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, leadership theory, communication and teamwork. Evaluations primarily relied on self-reported measures. Training outcomes were largely positive at the individual level, with participants reporting increased confidence and competence. Organisational and clinical outcomes were less frequently assessed. The long-term impact on patient outcomes and return on investment remains uncertain. Leadership development programmes were found to enhance individual competencies. However, evidence supporting long-term, system-wide impact remains limited due to reliance on self-reported evaluations and a lack of standardised evaluation approaches.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelLeadershipHumansclinical leadershipdevelopmentEducationleadership assessmentmedical leadership

Identifiers

PMID40527607
PMCPMC12772614

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.