The Health and Wellness of Future Physicians: Barriers to Change and Innovations in Undergraduate Medical Curricula
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: 1) To build on existing theory about the health and wellbeing of medical students and physicians; 2) To explore barriers to educational and institutional change; 3) To identify current educational innovations that improve the resilience of students and future doctors.Methods: Current explanatory models and research findings have been augmented through interviews with key academics and educators in North America, Australia and UK, as well as through reviewing innovative curricular interventions related to health and wellness of students and physicians.Results: Medical students are at risk of anxiety, depression and burnout,(1) while doctors suffer a range of occupational health hazards that illustrate psychological vulnerability.(2) Many commentators have called for changes to undergraduate education to improve the general resilience of doctors.(3, 4) The long delay in addressing physician stress may relate to the tacit assumptions of biomedicine that act as guiding principles in clinical practice.(5) While helpful in increasing the efficacy of modern medicine, these assumptions act as barriers to more progressive curricula. A ‘whole person care’ paradigm of patients is becoming well theorised, but acknowledging the ‘whole person’ of the student and physician is still work-in-progress. Fortunately, recent initiatives in many countries illustrate substantial progress. Undergraduate programs now focus on self-awareness, interpersonal skills, work-life balance, whole person care, and career choice. Methods vary widely and include coaching on physical, mental, and emotional health. Mindfulness, mentoring and Balint groups are increasing. Reflective practice is a prominent feature in a revised approach to professionalism.Conclusions: There is increasing evidence that the self-care of physicians will impact on patient outcomes. (6, 7) We also have a moral responsibility as educators, faculty and senior clinicians to provide more humane learning and working environments for students and doctors. Innovative educational initiatives are finding ways to overcome significant historical and institutional barriers.References1. Jennings M. Medical student burnout: interdisciplinary exploration and analysis. J Med Humanities. 2009;30(4):253-69. 2. Linzer M, Gerrity M, Douglas JA, McMurray JE, Williams ES, Konrad TR. Physician stress: results from the physician worklife study. Stress Health. 2002;18(1):37-42. 3. Dunn L, Iglewicz A, Moutier C. A conceptual model of medical student well-being: promoting resilience and preventing burnout. Acad Psychiatry. 2008;32(1):44-53.4. Seritan A, Hunt J, Shy A, Rea M, Worley L. The state of medical student wellness: A call for culture change. Acad Psychiatry. 2012;36(1):7-10.5. McWhinney I. Changing models: The impact of Kuhn's theory on medicine. Fam Pract. 1984;1(1):3 -9.6. West CP, Tan AD, Habermann TM, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1294-300. 7. Wallace JE, Lemaire JB, Ghali WA. Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. The Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1714-21.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».