Rural longitudinal integrated clerkships: lessons from two programs on different continents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Flinders University in Australia has had a rural longitudinal integrated clerkship for selected medical students, the Parallel Rural Community Curriculum, since 1997. The Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) in Canada introduced a similar clerkship for all NOSM students in 2007. An external evaluation of both programs was conducted in 2006 and 2008, respectively. The aim of this article was to analyse the similarities in and differences between these two rural programs and determine key factors that could inform others interested in creating similar programs. METHODS: The evaluation took the form of a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in each school using focus group and individual interviews, involving students, faculty, preceptors, health service managers and community representatives. Interviews were analysed for emerging themes based on a grounded theory approach, and common themes were tabulated and validated. The themes for the two sites were compared and contrasted to assess similarities and differences. RESULTS: Individual interviews were conducted with 87 people at Flinders and 39 at NOSM; focus groups included 45 students at Flinders and 7 at NOSM. All participants felt that the programs produce confident and skilled students. The educational value of the programs was expressed in terms of continuity of care, longitudinal exposure, development of relationships, mentoring, team work, and participatory learning. Common concerns related to issues of standardisation, ensuring exposure to all specialist disciplines, communication, support for students and preceptors, isolation, dealing with personal issues, and the process of site selection. CONCLUSIONS: The rural longitudinal integrated clerkship approach to teaching the core clinical components of the undergraduate medical curriculum has a positive impact on both students and clinicians, as demonstrated in two different sites on two continents. Five key factors emerged that may inform development of similar programs in other institutions: (1) invest in careful site selection matching local epidemiology with curricular goals; (2) create collegiate faculty development that facilitates peer to peer relationships between rural and urban faculty; (3) integrate IT systems with the health system to create hardware synergies; (4) manage student expectations regarding isolation and expected site differences; and (5) build strong local postgraduate training that reinforces the values and workforce benefits of the undergraduate program.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».