Assessing the landscape in medical oncology medical education scholarship: A scoping study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
11009 Background: Medical oncology and medical education have both expanded exponentially over the past 50 years; as such, it is important to understand the current status of postgraduate medical oncology education and develop ways to advance this field. This study undertakes a scoping review of medical education literature in medical oncology to inform future scholarship in this area. Methods: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ERIC (EBSCO), and Web of Science (UBC Core Collection) were searched to find peer-reviewed English language articles on Postgraduate Medical Education in Medical Oncology published between 2009 and 2020. The review was designed in accordance with updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping review. Articles were classified by learning specialty, learner training level, region of authorship, single or multi-institution, year of publication, whether the journal was an education journal, quantitative vs qualitative design, study methodology, and category or topic. A modified Kerns framework for curriculum development was used to assess the type of curriculum intervention, Boyer’s definition of scholarship was used to classify the type of scholarship, and the CanMEDS Framework was used to map the domains of physician competency each study aims to address. Results were interpreted using descriptive statistics and collated and summarized utilizing predetermined conceptual frameworks. Results: 2959 references were initially found across the 4 databases. After title and abstract screening, 305 articles remained; after full text review, a total of 144 articles were included in our final analysis. These data showed that postgraduate medical oncology graduate medical education scholarship is increasing and most commonly observed in the United States. Quantitative studies were most common with surveys used as the most popular study approach. In terms of CanMEDS framework, Professional and Medical Expert comprised the large majority of education focuses, while very few articles addressed Leader or Health Advocate. Curriculum development, professional development, and attitudinal skills (communication skills, ethics) were the dominant research themes, while no articles discussed teacher training. Conclusions: By investigating the body of current literature, this research identifies areas of highest priority in postgraduate medical oncology graduate medical education and opportunities for growth. Whereas areas like professionalism and attitudinal skills are well-studied, research is lacking in leadership, health advocacy and teaching training. This study provides guidance for future medical education scholarship in medical oncology and establishes a benchmark to examine changes in medical oncology educational scholarship over time.
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 | 0,072 | 0,206 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,042 | 0,049 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».