MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte

Are Clerks Ready For Clerkship? Third Year Medical Students' Anatomical Science Knowledge vs. Clerkship Director Expectations

2018· article· en· W3173827806 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Madeleine E. Norris, Kem A. Rogers, Charys M. Martin

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumMedical educationTest (biology)Medical schoolUndergraduate educationPsychologyMedicineUrologyRadiologyInternal medicinePedagogyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Competency‐based medical education (CBME) has been mandated across Canada for residency programs, encouraging undergraduate medical education (UME) programs to adopt this model. Schulich is undergoing a curriculum renewal to implement CBME at the UME level; however, there is limited research on how to effectively integrate anatomical sciences into a CBME model. Further, the anatomical concepts taught, and pedagogical methods employed, varies widely across curricula. Currently at Schulich, the anatomical science knowledge that clerkship directors expect students to learn prior to clerkship, and how much anatomical science knowledge current students retain, is unclear. By determining the effectiveness of the current anatomical science curriculum, we can inform the design and delivery of anatomical sciences into the CBME model. Thus, the specific aims of this research are to: (1) determine which anatomical science concepts are necessary for clerkship, and (2) assess third‐year medical students' anatomical science knowledge retention prior to and at the completion of each clerkship rotation. It was hypothesized that (1) paediatrics clerkship directors would deem embryology more important, compared to clerkship directors for surgery, where gross anatomy would take precedence. Furthermore, (2) third‐year medical students would score low on the pre‐test, due to limited knowledge retention after completing pre‐clerkship, and score higher on the post‐test as a result of the learning that takes place during clerkship. Methods (1) Questionnaires were created and used to guide interviews with all UME clerkship directors to determine which anatomical science concepts are thought to be necessary for each clerkship rotation. Interviews were transcribed and coded according to anatomical science themes mentioned. (2) Using information from Aim 1, a multiple choice assessment was created for each rotation to measure students' anatomical knowledge prior to and at the completion of each clerkship rotation. Results Embryology was the most prevalent anatomical science theme, and histology was the least. When analyzing each rotation, embryology was most prevalent for surgery, paeds, and family med., while imaging, neuroanatomy, and gross anatomy took precedence for internal med., psychiatry, and OB/GYN, respectively. Preliminary assessment results for four rotations reveal that students entering OB/GYN, family med., and psychiatry rotations achieved an average passing grade (>60%) on the pre‐test, while students entering paeds did not. When comparing the pre‐ and post‐tests, there was a significant improvement for students completing the paeds rotation (p=.009, d=.95). Conclusion Embryology being the most prevalent theme in surgery, paeds, and family med., and second most frequent in OB/GYN, suggests that these specialties rely on knowledge of normal development. Preliminary assessment data indicated that even though students entering paeds did not achieve an average passing grade on the pre‐test, which could be due to the challenging embryological concepts, this group of students displayed significant improvement on the post‐test, suggesting that learning of embryological concepts occurs during the rotation. The concepts deemed necessary by clerkship directors will be mapped to where and how they are taught within the current curriculum, which will elucidate curricular strengths and weaknesses, and help guide the curriculum reform. Support or Funding Information Ontario Graduate Scholarship This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,409
Écart entre enseignants0,359 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe FASEB Journal→Même sujetInnovations in Medical Education→Travaux en français237 207→