MEDICAL STUDENTS HAVE SPOKEN: IMPROVING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Child development is a critical aspect of medical education for which learners commonly report low confidence and preparedness for practice. A recent study reported that graduating medical students’ knowledge of child development was poor compared to what is expected at the physician level. The underlying reasons for this are complex, and literature is lacking on ways to improve teaching on child development in medical education. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess graduating medical students’ opinions about child development teaching received during medical school. The goal was to identify educational strategies that may be used to improve undergraduate education in child development. DESIGN/METHODS: Near the end of training, fourth year medical students completed an online survey assessing opinions about developmental teaching received throughout medical school, specifically: types of instruction, quantity, and quality of preclinical and clerkship teaching dedicated to child development. They were also asked how competent they felt assessing a child’s developmental status. Finally, students were asked to suggest ways this material could be better taught to future trainees. Responses were categorized into educational strategies for learning child development, as well as looking for overarching themes. RESULTS: 98 students from the 2014 graduating class completed the survey (56% response rate). Most students agreed that undergraduate teaching time dedicated to child development was adequate (55%). When asked how competent they felt assessing a child’s developmental status, only 38% felt capable, while 62% felt they were only slightly or not at all competent. Students identified that having a pocket guide to reference developmental milestones was very helpful. Many students emphasized that rote memorization of concepts was difficult. They also conveyed that clinical exposure was helpful to solidify concepts and that perhaps more authentic interactions with children are necessary. Other emerging themes included need for more reinforcement of abnormal clinical presentations and increased allied health exposures. CONCLUSION: Child development is a set of core concepts permeating all areas of pediatric medicine that is traditionally difficult to learn and retain. We identified several ways in which undergraduate teaching is helpful, including accessible reference materials, and also ways in which it might be improved, including increased individual and multidisciplinary clinical exposures. This student feedback may be used to develop new teaching tools and strategies to increase graduating medical students’ competency and confidence related to normal child development.
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 | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,008 | 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 ».