MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2414108258 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-15-00161.1

Scholarship in Residency: Invoking Change in the Era of Competency-Based Medical Education

2015· article· en· W2414108258 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica E. Waserman, Ana Hategan, Karen Saperson, Meghan McConnell, Sheila Harms

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipGraduate medical educationMedical educationResidency trainingMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceAccreditationContinuing education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The current research literature suggests that some gender imbalances prevail within postgraduate medical education. Specifically, trainees interested in research continue to be predominantly male.1 This academic gender imbalance is reflected by a significant lag, and in some specialties, a decline in female senior authors compared to their male counterparts.2 We hypothesize that the implementation of a writing mentorship program for female residents is a novel strategy to assist in creating and publishing their academic work. Such an approach could assist resident physicians in becoming lifelong learners, educators, and scholars.A resident mentoring program for academic writing was piloted at McMaster University in Canada to determine whether it would influence the academic productivity of female psychiatry residents, as measured by number of publications. The McMaster postgraduate psychiatry training program is a 5-year program, and scholarly publication is not a current requirement. The number of all resident publications in peer-reviewed journals was measured over a 3-year period, predating and postdating implementation of a scholarly mentorship program for writing that has been offered on a voluntary basis to third-year female residents as of August 2011. In this program, interested participants (n = 5) were consecutively assigned to the same female faculty mentor, who assisted in the residents' creation and submission of manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals. All participants were successful in generating multiple peer-reviewed publications. Since the implementation of the mentorship program, female-mentored trainees authored approximately two-thirds (n = 9) of all resident publications (n = 15), with 7 of 10 total projects with mentored participants as first author.As shown in the table, shifting trends toward increasing numbers of publications by female residents, as well as women in the first authorship role, compared to their male peers were noted with the addition of a structured mentorship program for women. Comparatively, downward trends were seen in male peers.Effective scientific communication and dissemination of research findings are key skills for a physician. Yet there is rarely formal instruction offered in medical writing, nor are scholarship opportunities explicitly provided to residents, unless they are in a dedicated research track. In Canada, the Royal College Competence by Design initiative is being implemented in specialties over the next 5 years to support competency-based medical education on a national level.3 In this personalized, outcomes-driven educational model, residents will be required to actively assimilate the necessary knowledge and skills at each stage of training and career development. A writing mentorship program supports the development of numerous core competencies outlined in competency-based medical education. In addition to developing written communication skills, academic writing requires residents to collaborate with coauthors, and to professionally interact with editors and stakeholders as they work toward publication.While our program was aimed at female trainees, this type of academic writing mentorship could benefit the scholarly productivity of all residents. Residency programs should make academic productivity a curricular goal, with a stance of offering multiple opportunities for residents to generate academic products. Although there are limitations to any interpretations deriving from a study limited to 1 department at 1 institution, it raises questions about the importance of formal training to promote scholarship within residency programs. Future studies are needed to explore the long-term impact of scholarly mentorship on residents of both sexes and across various specialties.

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)0,028
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Évaluation · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,972
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,147

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0280,066
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,016
Communication savante0,0140,010
Science ouverte0,0030,020
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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 Opus0,103
Tête enseignante GPT0,418
Écart entre enseignants0,315 · 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'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineÉvaluation
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

Citations4
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationMême sujetInnovations in Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207