The Impact of a Rotating Elective on Medical Students' Perception of Radiation Oncology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background As Radiation Oncology (RO) is a field with limited exposure in undergraduate medical education curricula, the information sources used to form students' perception of the field can have a substantial impact on whether students decide to pursue experiences in RO. Furthermore, the effects of a single elective experience in RO can strongly influence career decisions as it may serve as the only experience for students to gain an understanding of RO as a specialty. This study analyzes which information sources students use and most strongly value when forming their perception of RO both before and after participating in the program, while also analyzing changes in the perception of various speciality-related factors associated with RO. Methods To address underrepresented specialties, the Pre-clerkship Residency Exploration Program (PREP) was developed to provide students exposure to RO and 13 other specialties through half-day clinical rotations, simulations, skills sessions, and panel discussions. A total of 37 participants completed both "Pre-program" and "Post-program" surveys to evaluate which information sources they use and value most when forming their perception of RO, and student perception of career factors associated with RO was assessed. Results Students reported that Pre-program information sources of RO were based on Lectures (35 students, 94.6%) and Preceptors (18 students, 48.7%). Post-program responses indicated that the greatest sources of information used were from Preceptors (36 students, 97.3%) and Residents (34 students, 91.9%), with the greatest increase being found in interactions with Residents for gaining specialty information (78% increase). Students most highly valued Preceptors, Residents, and Lectures as information sources when forming their perception of RO. Pre-program, students had the greatest positive perception of RO with respect to Income Potential (mean: 3.76/5.00 ± 0.87), Intellectual Challenge (mean: 3.90/5.00 ± 0.94), and Research Opportunities (mean: 3.86/5.00 ± 0.83) while most negatively assessing the factors of Flexibility (mean: 2.69/5.00 ± 0.93) and Level of Stress (mean: 2.93/5.00 ± 0.94). Conclusions Student perception of a medical specialty is a factor that may influence student elective choice and career decisions. Through participating in PREP, significant positive increases were found in students' perception of RO in the areas of Flexibility, Patient Population, Competitiveness of the Specialty, Quality of the Working Environment, and Levels of Stress. This study highlights which information sources students value the most when forming their perception of RO and the impact a single elective experience has on improving student perception of the field. RO-based programs and lectures can be better designed using this information to introduce students to this specialty.
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 | 0,013 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».