Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Physicians are expected to educate patients, students, colleagues, as well as members of the interdisciplinary team. However, unlike in the United Kingdom and Canada, US medical schools do not require teaching as a competency for graduation. High-quality teaching and communication skills are necessary to ensure patient safety and trust. As the field of medicine becomes increasingly expansive and complex, it can no longer rely on empiric forms of knowledge exchange. Physician training must include pedagogy to create competent educators. In this project, the educational efforts of senior medical students providing simulation-based education to junior students were compared with that provided by faculty-led education. METHODS: The "Medical Students as Simulation Educators" (MSASE) course consists of a didactic and a teaching application component. The didactic component delivers learning modules on topics such as simulation education history, learning theories, debriefing and feedback, curriculum development, teaching methods, assessment, evaluation, and essentials of running the Laerdal SimMan 3G simulation system. After completing didactic courses, student educators apply their pedagogic skills in facilitator-guided, high-fidelity clinical simulations in areas such as anaphylaxis, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. The evaluation of MSASE compared the knowledge gain of learners led by clinical faculty to those led by student-educators. Learners completed the same multiple-choice quiz (MCQ) before and after the simulation training. In addition, student satisfaction surveys were used to assess their attitudes to being taught by their peers. RESULTS: Scores from the pre- and post-tests were nearly identical in the faculty and student-led groups. The faculty-led group's average pre- and post-activity scores were 41.67% and 72.81%, respectively. The average increase in scores was 31.14%. The student-led group's average pre- and post-activity scores were 44.43% and 75.71%, respectively. The average increase in scores was 31.28%. The results of the student satisfaction survey were supportive of peers as educators. The survey used a 5-point scale with 1 representing "strongly disagree" and 5 representing "strongly agree". Aspects surveyed include learning objective identification and achievement, educator preparedness, organization and structure, simulation realism, complexity appropriateness, engagement level, quality of debriefing, and more. The average student satisfaction score for each aspect of the survey was greater than 4.5. The average of all elements surveyed was 4.75/5. CONCLUSIONS: Data support the contention that medical students are equally effective in simulation-based teaching as clinical faculty. Participating student educators and student learners reported satisfaction with the MSASE experience.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,005 |
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 ».