Relationship between Canadian medical school student career interest in emergency medicine and post-graduate training disposition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Canada has two independent routes of emergency medicine (EM) training and certification. This unique situation may encourage medical students with EM career aspirations to apply to family medicine (FM) residencies to subsequently acquire College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) training and certification in EM. We sought answers to the following: 1) Are medical students who indicate EM as their top career choice on medical school entry, and then complete a FM residency, more likely to undertake subsequent CFPC-EM training than other FM residents who did not indicate EM as their top career choice; and 2) What are the characteristics of medical students in four predefined groups, based upon their early interest in EM as a career and ultimate postgraduate training disposition. METHODS: Data were accessed from a survey of medical students in 11 medical school classes from eight Canadian universities and anonymously linked to information from the Canadian Residency Matching Service between 2006 and 2009. RESULTS: Of 1036 participants, 63 (6.1%) named EM as their top career choice on medical school entry. Of these, 10 ultimately matched to a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) EM residency program, and 24 matched to a FM residency program, nine of whom went on to do a one-year CFPC-EM residency program in contrast to 57 of the remaining 356 students matching to FM residency programs who did not indicate EM was their top career choice (37.5% vs 16.0%, p=0.007). Statistically significant attitudinal differences related to the presence or absence of EM career interest on medical school entry were found. CONCLUSION: Considering those who complete CFPC-EM training, a greater proportion indicate on admission to medical school that EM is their top career choice compared to those who do not. Moreover, students with an early career interest in EM are similar for several attitudinal factors independent of their ultimate postgraduate training disposition. Given the current issues and challenges facing FM and EM, these findings have implications that merit consideration by both the CFPC and the RCPSC.
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 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 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 ».