MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1947146392 · doi:10.18438/b8gk5v

Questions Remain about Whether EBM Competencies Learned in Medical School are Retained in Residency

2007· article· en· W1947146392 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suzanne Lewis

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumMedical educationGraduate medical educationResidency trainingMedicinePsychologyMedical schoolFamily medicineAccreditationPedagogyContinuing education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective – To assess medical graduates’ use of evidence based medicine (EBM) in residency, self-perception of EBM skills, attitudes toward EBM, and the impact of a formal EBM curriculum in their third undergraduate year. Design – A longitudinal follow-up study by self-administered questionnaire. Setting – Internal medicine residency programs in US hospitals. Subjects – A convenience sample of 2001 and 2002 graduates of the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria (UICOM-P) (n=78), and their respective residency program directors (n=72). Methods – A student graduate questionnaire (SGQ) was sent to all members of UICOM-P’s 2001 and 2002 graduating classes who had completed the EBM course during their M-3 Internal Medicine clerkship. A program director questionnaire (PDQ), similar to the SGQ, was sent to the graduates’ residency program directors. The research instrument was tested with a pilot group prior to use, but not validated. The questionnaires consisted of 4 main sections. The first section examined formal and informal EBM programs in the graduates’ residency curriculum. The second section consisted of a self-assessment of EBM skills by the residents and an assessment of those skills by their program directors. The third section asked graduates to compare their EBM skills to those of their fellow residents who had not been students at UICOM-P. Similarly, in the third section of the PDQ, program directors were asked to compare the EBM skills of UICOM-P graduates and non-UICOM-P graduates participating in the residency program. The last section concerned professional and demographic characteristics. Copies of the surveys were mailed out to non-responders after 6 weeks. Results were collated but statistical analysis was not applied. Main results – The response rate was 32% for residents and 35% for program directors. The number of incomplete surveys was not reported. Forty-four percent of all respondents reported having a formal EBM curriculum for residents, and 76% reported an informal curriculum. For both formal and informal programs, the most common teaching formats were journal clubs, followed by lectures, teaching rounds, morning reports, bedside consultations, ambulatory clinics and seminars. In section two of the questionnaires, both residents and program directors rated the residents’ EBM skills similarly. However, the residents rated their skills in searching the literature and application of findings to clinical practice higher than the program directors. Program directors also rated the residents’ skills in understanding statistics and tests higher than the residents themselves. Twenty-four percent of both residents and program directors rated the UICOM-P graduates as “very competent” or “extremely competent” in EBM skills (50). Only 35% of program directors and 27% of residents rated the UICOM-P graduates’ EBM skills as “usually better” or “always better” than their peers who were not UICOM-P graduates (50). Conclusion - The authors of this study conclude that, for UICOM-P graduates, “it might be implied from these results that the EBM skills gained during medical school were retained through their medical school graduation and into their residency training” (51). However, this study has methodological weaknesses which make it difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the results.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,033

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,045
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0010,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,445
Écart entre enseignants0,377 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207