DEVELOPING SKILLS FOR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES: PRE-CLINICAL ELECTIVE EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Many medical students feel they are not trained adequately on caring for persons with developmental disabilities (PWDD). Additionally, there is a lack of literature about effective teaching methods (Troller et al. 2016; Salvador-Carulla et al., 2015). Students may have poor clinical skills when assessing developmental delays and experience discomfort when interacting with these patients and their families. Consequently, PWDD may not receive timely, empathetic care from their future clinicians (Sahin & Akyol, 2010). We previously developed and evaluated a pre-clinical 12-hour elective, “Developing Skills for Developmental Disabilities” (DSDD). Its primary learning objective was enhancing students’ knowledge and attitudes toward PWDD, with the goal of improving future patient-physician encounters. OBJECTIVES: We here look at reproducibility of learning outcomes over two years of offering this elective. DESIGN/METHODS: DSDD is a 12-hour pre-clinical elective developed collaboratively by a group of medical students and a developmental pediatrician. It provides training in disability, behaviour, and available interventions via faculty presentations, peer teaching, and observing a clinical intervention program for children with developmental disabilities. Students also complete written assignments and a personal narrative to self-assess feelings and beliefs. All students completed a 10-question survey (responses on a 5 point Likert scale) at the start and end of the elective, whereby they self-assessed confidence in skills and knowledge related to interacting with PWDD. Scores pre- and post-elective were compared using t-test analysis. RESULTS: Over 2 academic years, 44 students enrolled in the elective, and 41 (93%) completed it. Of the 41 participants, 19 (46%) had work experience with PWDD, and 26 (63%) had personal experience (family or friend related). Analysis of all participating students showed statistically significant (p<0.05) increases across all 10 self-reported scores. Comparison of the two cohorts of students separately revealed cohort 1 (n=20) showed statistically significant increases in 8 out of 10 scores, while cohort 2 (n=21) showed significant increases across all 10 scores. CONCLUSION: Overall, DSSD increased students’ self-reported confidence regarding PWDD. Additionally, data was consistent over two years, demonstrating reproducibility of the educational intervention. Future plans include adding a control group to address potential self-selection bias. Aspects of this approach may be adapted into teaching tools for office practice (e.g. assessing development, discussions with parents) when medical students are working alongside general pediatricians. If curricular interventions such as DSDD can help increase future physicians’ skills, PWDD may receive better care.
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 | 0,006 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».