Medical Student Comfort With Procedural Skills Performance Based on Elective Experience and Career Interest
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Despite increased efforts, studies suggest that exposure to procedural skills in undergraduate medical training is insufficient. As medical students have low self-reported competence in many skills, a significant concern is that medical students are underprepared for a clerkship. Furthermore, pre-clerkship electives selected based on student career interests can provide students with additional skills learning opportunities. The impact of career interest and elective choice on student comfort with procedural skills is unclear. This study examines the relationship between student procedural skills comfort, career interest, and elective choices. Materials and methods An evidence-based questionnaire was synthesized following a literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Surveys were completed by second-year medical students. A Likert scale was used to evaluate students' exposure, comfort, and motivation to learn common procedural skills. Descriptive, Pearson's chi-square and Spearman's rho correlation coefficient analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between career interests, elective exposure, and procedural skills. Results Medical students (>60%) reported poor comfort levels for most skills, despite >80% of students displaying high motivation to learn. Elective choice impacted student comfort levels as students who completed electives in anesthesiology were more comfortable with performing intubation (23% vs 10%, p = 0.026) and IV insertion (38% vs 13%, p = 0.002). Those with surgical career interests were less comfortable performing Foley catheter insertion in males (7% vs 5%, p = 0.033) and in females (7% vs 5%, p = 0.008). Conclusions This study supports that medical students feel low levels of comfort with performing procedural skills despite high motivation for learning. Comfort was influenced by both career interest and elective experience. Programs aiming to increase students' comfort levels in performing procedural skills should adapt curricula toward increasing early exposure to these skills.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».