Developmental Delay? Graduating Medical Students’ Knowledge of Child Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: Knowledge of child development is fundamental to medical practice. Previous studies have demonstrated gaps in knowledge and training among trainees and practicing physicians. We conducted a longitudinal study of medical students’ knowledge of child development. Previously, we reported that students’ knowledge of developmental milestones was poor at baseline, did not improve after preclinical teaching and improved marginally after pediatrics clerkship. Here, we report the report the data on graduating medical students. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to describe graduating medical students’ knowledge of developmental milestones in comparison to their baseline knowledge. A secondary aim was to compare graduating students' knowledge to that of the general population. DESIGN/METHODS: We assessed medical students' knowledge of developmental milestones using a previously published 17-item questionnaire. Milestones were categorized as motor or non-motor. Students were surveyed at the start of medical school in Year 1 and prior to graduation in Year 4. Changes in students' scores were assessed using paired t-tests. Graduating medical students were compared to a published general population sample using t-tests. RESULTS: 56 students completed the survey in both Years 1 and 4 (33% of entering class). Overall, students’ percentage of correct answers increased from 24% at baseline to 32% at graduation (p<0.001). Knowledge of motor milestones did not change significantly between Years 1 and 4. Knowledge of non-motor milestones improved significantly between Years 1 and 4 (p<0.001). 85 medical students completed the questionnaire in Year 4 (50% of entering class). Compared to a sample of the general population (n=1198), graduating medical students answered 1.0 more questions correctly out of 17 (p<0.001). Students’ knowledge of non-motor milestones was greater than that of the general population (p<0.001). Knowledge of motor milestones did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Medical students' knowledge of developmental milestones improved only modestly over the course of their undergraduate medical education. At graduation, their knowledge of developmental milestones was marginally better than that of the general population. This level of knowledge is likely insufficient for generalist practice. At the undergraduate level, curricular improvements including innovative teaching strategies and greater student engagement are likely necessary to remediate this knowledge gap. Pediatricians supervising medical students and residents should not assume that trainees have an adequate knowledge of normal child development and may wish to highlight the developmental achievements of typically developing children as part of their clinical teaching.
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 | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».