Assessment of the Training Needs of Paediatric Residents in Developing a Curriculum in Gastroenterology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: Well defined and focused objectives are essential for effective learning. Paediatric residents are expected to meet the educational objectives as set out by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). For rotation in paediatric gastroenterology, it is unclear how the objectives and list of key clinical conditions was originally developed and which of them are most important for general practice. With increasing educational commitments, residents have limited time to acquire all the essential skills needed for clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To identify topics in gastroenterology which are of most importance in general pediatric practice. This would enable development of a concise and focused curriculum for pediatric residents doing rotation in gastroenterology. DESIGN/METHODS: All paediatricians in the four Canadian Atlantic provinces were surveyed with a mailed questionnaire. The list consisted of 14 clinical conditions from the current RCPSC objectives with additional 6 generated after input from regional paediatric gastroenterologists. Information was collected on demographics including type and duration of pediatric practice. The participants ranked the conditions on a 4 point Likert scale (from Not Important to Very Important). RESULTS: Of the 234 subjects, 132 (56%) responded. Of these, 57.5% were female, 48.8% were academic and 48% were general pediatricians. The majority (73.2%) were in practice >10 years and 75.6% felt that a rotation in gastroenterology should be mandatory in pediatric residency training. Celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux and obesity were identified as Very Important conditions by 94.4%, 96.1% and 96.0% of the participants respectively. These are currently not in RCPSC list of clinical problems. Clinical situations encountered in long-term follow-up of survivors of liver transplantation (RCPSC objective) and chronic pancreatitis were considered Not Important by 61.3% and 58.3% of respondents respectively. Academic pediatricians placed significantly more importance on abdominal pain than non-academic pediatricians (p=0.029). Pediatricians in practice for <10 years identified issues encountered in long-term follow-up of liver transplantation (p=0.039) and celiac disease (p=0.015) as significantly more important than those in practice longer. There were no significant differences between general paediatricians and specialists in cross analysis of all other variables studied. CONCLUSION: Needs assessment for paediatric residency curriculum development is important as it can identify gaps in RCPSC objectives. Input from general pediatricians should be sought systematically and on an ongoing basis in order to keep the curriculum current and focused.
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 | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».