Challenges of medical residency. Are they perceived and addressed differently by international medical graduates, Canadian medical graduates, and preceptors?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Residency is an important and challenging part of medical education. Some of these challenges are common to all residents and some are specific to a particular group of residents. A number of studies have addressed the challenges of residency. To our knowledge, the experience of challenges from the perspective of international medical graduates (IMGs), Canadian medical graduates (CMGs), and their preceptors has not been studied in a single residency cohort. This study represents a valuable step in addressing the differential needs of international and Canadian medical graduates and in identifying the way different groups of residents can support each other to function better during residency.Methods: We surveyed residents and preceptors to determine what they perceive to be the greatest challenges for each group during residency. The survey was sent to the program coordinators of all English language psychiatry residency programs in Canada to be distributed to all residents and preceptors. Three reminders were sent, and a prize draw was offered to participants. Mean scale scores were calculated. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were calculated to compare resident self-ratings between groups, preceptors' ratings of each resident group's challenges, and all four groups' perceptions of the challenges experienced by different groups. To determine the particular types of challenges that residents experience, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were also used for item-level comparisons.Results: 177 residents and 82 preceptors completed the survey. We found no significant differences in the mean scale scores for how each group rated their own challenges though the most challenging area was different for each group of residents. Preceptors viewed FIMGs as experiencing the greatest challenges (M = 3.27, SD = 0.066, 95% CI [3.11, 3.41]) and CMGs, the least (M = 2.02, SD = 0.59, 95% CI [1.89, 2.16]; F (2, 227) = 88.030, p < 0.001).Conclusion: Although the degree of challenge perceived by all groups of residents was relatively similar in general, different groups of residents identified different areas of challenges from their own perspective, and these areas differed from those identified by their resident colleagues and preceptors as being challenging for each group. This study highlights the necessity for reviewing the needs, strengths, and challenges of each group of residents and the importance of better communication between preceptors and residents regarding the different areas of challenges.
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 | 0,034 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,026 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».