已发表论文

可委托专业活动(EPAs)在健康专业教育中的实施及影响:一项全球文献计量学分析

 

Authors Zhang Y, Liang W, Hu Y, Sun B, Ding S, Xue J, Zheng C 

Received 11 November 2025

Accepted for publication 25 January 2026

Published 31 January 2026 Volume 2026:17 580770

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S580770

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Prof. Dr. Balakrishnan Nair

Yikai Zhang,1,* Weiwei Liang,1,* Yue Hu,2 Bo Sun,1 Siying Ding,3 Jing Xue,4 Chao Zheng1 

1Department of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, People’s Republic of China; 2Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease of Zhejiang Province, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310009, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Rheumatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310009, People’s Republic of China

*These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence: Chao Zheng; Email chao_zheng@zju.edu.cn Jing Xue, Email jingxue@zju.edu.cn

Introduction: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have emerged as a key framework in health professions education, facilitating the development and assessment of competencies in healthcare professionals. Despite the rapid expansion of EPA-related research, the global distribution, thematic trends, and scholarly equity surrounding these studies remain underexplored. The existing literature, while growing, lacks a systematic and quantitative examination of the geographical and institutional origins of EPA research.
Methods: This bibliometric study analyzes a dataset of 966 publications sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection, spanning from 2005 to 2025. The analysis includes an examination of publication trends, collaborative networks, and thematic shifts over the two-decade period.
Results: The findings reveal a dominance of EPA research originating from North America and Europe, with significantly less representation from the Global South. Over time, there has been a shift in research focus from the development of EPA frameworks to the study of their implementation in clinical education settings. Collaboration patterns suggest a concentration of research activity within a few high-resource regions, with limited cross-regional partnerships.
Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the global landscape of EPA research, uncovering knowledge disparities and underrepresented regions. It highlights the need for more inclusive and equitable contributions from the Global South and suggests that future research efforts should prioritize collaborative, international approaches to enhance the diversity and applicability of EPA scholarship.

Keywords: entrustable professional activities, EPAs, competency-based health professions education, bibliometric analysis, clinical competencies