The current state of headache medicine education in the United States and Canada: An observational, survey‐based study of neurology clerkship directors and curriculum deans
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current headache medicine education paradigm in allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the United States and Canada. BACKGROUND: There is a disparity in the number of clinicians specially trained to treat patients with headache disorders and the number of people who have them. Early education and exposure to headache medicine is crucial to address this disparity. However, the current state of headache education within medical schools across the United States and Canada is unknown. METHODS: The authors created a medical student headache education survey, which is a 20-question REDCap survey that was distributed via email to the neurology clerkship director, curriculum dean, or similar role at each US and Canadian MD or DO conferring medical school. The email listserv was created using the American Academy of Neurology Clerkship Directory, the Association of American Medical Colleges Organization Directory, the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine Organization Directory, manual searches of the institutions' websites, and phone calls and emails to administrators as needed. RESULTS: Of the 249 individuals contacted, 78 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 31.3%. Of those responses, 84.6% of respondents (66/78) reported that their institution has at least one mandatory session on headache disorders. Many of these sessions (72.7% (48/78)) occurred during preclinical training, and 74.2% (49/78) occurred as part of the clinical curricula. Of respondents, 44.9% (39/78) reported that their institutions coordinate headache education across training levels (i.e., from preclinical to clinical), and only 17.9% (14/78) coordinate across clinical rotations. The most common topics covered were headache red flags, migraine, pharmacologic management, and differentiating primary versus secondary headache. 65.4% of respondents (51/78) felt that the preclinical headache curriculum prepares their students for the clinical experience, and 55.1% (43/78) felt that medical students were learning enough about headache medicine at their institution. Barriers to educating medical students about headache included insufficient time during courses, lack of administrative support in curricula development, lack of available resources, and lack of student interest. Case-based learning modules and online lectures were the most desired educational materials to improve medical student headache education at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of medical schools report incorporating headache medicine education into preclinical or clinical curricula and cover a range of topics in headache medicine. Yet there remains a lack of consistency, with some reporting limited headache education, citing barriers such as lack of administrative support and available educational resources. There is also variation in what is being taught at the medical student level. Future projects should aim to address said barriers, with the goal of providing a standardized headache medicine curriculum for use across medical schools.
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 | 0,006 | 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 ».