MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2205406742 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.3361

The importance of increasing urology exposure among undergraduates: A U.K. Perspective

2015· article· en· W2205406742 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael S. Floyd

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiversity and Career in Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpecialtyUrologyMedicineMedical educationFamily medicinePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I read with great interest the recent paper by Jones et al 1 detailing the attitudes towards urology as a career choice amongst medical students and foundation year trainees in the U.K. The decline in undergraduate exposure to urology is also discussed and the results of an internet-based survey involving six medical schools are presented. This study excluded graduates from non-U.K. medical schools. The authors should acknowledge that many nonU.K. graduates (of which I am one) elect to train in urology in the U.K. at a postgraduate level due to its history of specialist training, which is internationally recognized. If non-U.K. graduates, at foundation level, had been included in this survey, urology may have been a more popular career option. According to the results in Figure 1, Jones at al report that urology was the least likely speciality to be chosen by new graduates, as only 7% would most likely pursue it as a career compared to general surgery at 17%. Interestingly, ophthalmology, another specialty often underrepresented at the undergraduate level, was not offered as a future career choice. Why was this omitted? It is reassuring to see that male catheterization was assessed as an index technique, but only 21% of males surveyed either agreed (17%) or strongly agreed (4%) at being confident at the procedure. This does indicate that junior practitioners receive inadequate training in catheter management, as previous studies have shown that 76% of newly qualified doctors feel their catheter training was inadequate.2 The secondary outcomes reported are commendable. The idea of a designated workshop day was supported by 88% of respondents. A 2013 study examining out-of-hours calls to urology registrars also supported the idea of a defined urology workshop at the beginning of a core rotation for junior trainees in an effort to reduce unnecessary out-ofhours calls.3 Although 68% of respondents stated that they felt comfortable making a referral, greater than one-third did not feel confident assessing an acute urology admission.1 We again demonstrated that junior trainees (foundation and core level) are the most frequent callers seeking advice, but that the advice relayed is frequently insufficient.3 Therefore, it should be acknowledged by the authors of this study that although 68% of respondents were comfortable making a referral, this is not an objective measurement, as the opinion of the recipient has not been sought, nor the quality of the referral validated. This work does highlight the decline in exposure to urology at the undergraduate level. This problem is not limited to the U.K., nor is it a new one: in 1994 Benson commented that 15% of new graduates had never experienced an undergraduate rotation in urology.4 Medical education has evolved with simulation-based training and problem-based learning (as opposed to bedside teaching and didactic lectures) and it is unfortunate that newly qualified practitioners may never experience rotations in certain specialties. The authors state that urology workshops are not routinely incorporated into U.K. undergraduate teaching and recommend their introduction. This is an important point, as designated workshops on catheter management, basic uroradiology, clinical assessment, and result interpretation prior to starting a foundation year may help to make urology more attractive as a postgraduate surgical career.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,031
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,062

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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 Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Même sujetDiversity and Career in Medicine→Travaux en français237 207→