Family physicians' attitudes toward education in research skills during residency: findings from a national mailed survey.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of practising Canadian family physicians toward education in research skills during residency, to identify what determines these attitudes, and to investigate the effect of education in research skills on future research activity. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Stratified random sample of 247 practising physicians who were members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' attitudes toward education in research skills during residency, their perceptions of the value of research in primary care, and their current involvement in research activities. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 56%. Nearly all respondents agreed that critical appraisal skills are essential to the practice of modern family medicine. Most agreed that it is very important that the evidence base for primary care medicine be developed by family physicians, yet only one-third agreed that research skills ought to receive more emphasis during residency training, and fewer than one-quarter agreed that practising family physicians should have strong research skills. Fewer than half the respondents agreed that a core goal of family medicine residency training should be to promote and develop an active interest in research. While three-quarters agreed that research projects during residency can be formative learning experiences, only about 40% indicated that research projects should be required, and only about 20% considered their own resident research projects to have been highly influential learning experiences. Respondents whose residency programs had research in the curriculum were significantly more likely to have found their research projects to be highly influential learning experiences (P <.05), and those who had successfully completed research projects were less likely to believe that they lacked the necessary skills and expertise to conduct their own research studies. Those who had successfully completed resident research projects participated in postresidency research activity at a significantly higher rate than those who did not complete projects (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Despite a conviction that research is important in primary care, only a few practising family physicians in our sample believed that strong research skills are important or that education in research skills should receive more emphasis during residency training. Resident research projects are not invariably influential learning experiences, although some evidence indicates that successful completion of a project makes future participation in research more likely.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,064 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».