Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The authors articulate the importance of integrating stewardship within the larger medical education curriculum in order to fully realize the goals of the Choosing Wisely campaign. When the ABIM Foundation, Consumer Reports, and nine medical specialty societies launched Choosing Wisely in 2012, we initially envisioned it as an effort to address overuse and waste in the U.S. health care system. We have been inspired to see the campaign and its ideals embraced internationally by our colleagues in Canada, as well as in countries including Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. While the goal of Choosing Wisely is simple—to encourage clinicians and patients to engage in conversations about avoiding unnecessary care—achieving it is far more complex. As Leon-Carlyle and colleagues rightly posit, teaching stewardship competencies as part of medical education is a crucial step in ensuring clinicians develop critical thinking skills and are prepared to practice evidence-based medicine when they get to the bedside. To support clinicians in this endeavor, the ABIM Foundation has undertaken several initiatives aimed at catalyzing development of new approaches in medical education and training. In partnership with Costs of Care, the ABIM Foundation launched the Teaching Value in Health Care Learning Network1 to give early adopters and innovators in medical education a venue to share best practices and learnings. The community seeks to inspire others to adapt these ideas and implement them in their own institutions, and a monthly webinar series highlights implementation models and innovations in value-based training. The foundation has also partnered with Costs of Care to run the Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Challenge,2 which aims to identify promising innovations and bright ideas for teaching high-value care and stewardship to medical students, trainees, and faculty. Over the past two years more than 150 entries have been submitted and a dozen winners declared. Most recently, the ABIM Foundation funded several projects3 that will foster innovations and new approaches to integrating stewardship competencies and better decision making in medical education and training. Much work is still needed until, as the authors write, resource stewardship becomes a “norm in medical practice.” I am encouraged by the growing momentum being generated by the ABIM Foundation’s programs, as well as the work of the authors and many others, to address these challenges and help prepare future clinicians to provide the best care possible for patients. Daniel B. Wolfson, MHSA Executive vice president and chief operating officer, ABIM Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; [email protected]
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 | 0,009 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,046 | 0,074 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,008 |
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 ».