CanMEDS scholars: A national survey on urology residents’ attitudes towards research during training
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Participation in scholarly activity is an important tenet of residency training and is firmly entrenched in Canada since the introduction of CanMEDS roles by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. As Canadian residency programs transition to competency-based training, it will remain important to understand how to best implement and encourage scholarly pursuits among resident trainees. The objective of this study was to understand the experiences, attitudes, and barriers that surgical residents face when pursuing research during their training. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire was administered to chief residents of all English-speaking urology programs in Canada in 2015. Questions were open- and close-ended, including an agreement score based on a five-point Likert scale. Questions addressed residents' involvement in and attitudes towards research, as well as their perceptions of the utility of research involvement during training. The residents were also asked about the support they received and potential areas to improve the attainment of this competency. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses. RESULTS: There was a 100% overall response rate to the questionnaire. This study revealed that Canadian urology residents have a high rate of participation in scholarly work, with the vast majority (94%) publishing at least one manuscript with a mean of four papers. Despite this, there appeared to be significant variation in the respondent's experiences, including protected time for research. Furthermore, many residents appeared unconvinced of the importance of research involvement, with only 51% agreement that participation was important to their overall training. As well, a significant number of residents reported largely external, rather than internal, motivations for research participation, such as attaining a preferred fellowship (66% agreement). While the majority of respondents felt (66% agreement) that the scholar role was important in residency training, it would appear that significant barriers, including time and mentorship, limited the effectiveness of research participation to gain those competencies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this self-report survey outline the significant differences in attitudes and experience towards mandatory research as a component of scholarship in Canadian urology training programs. As postgraduate medical education evolves, particularly with the uptake of competency-based medical education, programs and residents will need to address the motives and barriers to better foster academic pursuits during urology training.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,422 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».