118: Injury Prevention and Control Education in Paediatric and Paediatric Emergency Medicine Training Programs in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Injury is the leading cause of death in Canadians ages 1–44 years. As providers of both well and acute care for children, general paediatricians and paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians are strategically positioned to implement injury prevention and control practices. Currently, there is no literature describing the injury prevention and control curriculum within Canadian postgraduate training programs in either Paediatric Medicine or PEM. We determined the proportion of Canadian Paediatric and PEM training programs that incorporated a formalized injury prevention and control component within their curriculum. We secondarily determined the proportion of programs where injury control currently has a high priority within the curriculum, as well as the proportion of program directors (PDs) who felt that injury control should be a high priority topic. A novel cross-sectional survey was developed, based on expert opinion and existing literature. An electronic survey was distributed to all potential participants using modified Dillman methodology (via Survey Gizmo). It was sent to all Royal College Paediatric (n=17) and PEM (n=10) PDs from May to June 2014. The 20 question tool was pre and pilot tested prior to implementation. An overall response rate of 89% (24/27) was obtained (16/17 for Paediatric programs and 8/10 for PEM programs). The median number of trainees enrolled in the programs was 6.5 [IQR 5.5–7] for PEM and 37 [IQR 25–52] for Paediatric Medicine. Fifty seven percent [95% CI 25% to 84%] of PEM programs and 44% [95% CI 23% to 67%] of Paediatric programs formally incorporated injury prevention and control within their curriculum. Among these programs, 70% had between 1 h and 5 h total instruction time for injury epidemiology and prevention. All PEM PDs and 86% of Paediatric PDs felt that injury prevention and control should be mandatory in residency training (either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’). No PEM or Paediatric PDs reported injury control as high priority (defined as 8–10 on a Likert scale) currently within the curriculum. However, 33% [95% CI 10% to 70%] of PEM PDs and 7% [95% CI 1% to 31%] of Paediatric PDs felt injury control should have high priority within their curriculum. Only half of surveyed PDs incorporate injury control training within their Pediatric Medicine or PEM curriculum. Despite its importance in securing a healthy future for Canada's children, PDs currently do not feel it merits high priority within the curriculum. Further research is needed to understand this decision, before any effective changes can be implemented to curriculum content.
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 | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».