Perspectives on virtual interviews and emerging technologies integration in family medicine residency programs: a cross-sectional survey study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-person interviews for the recruitment of family medicine residents shifted to online (virtual) interviews. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to gather the ideas about virtual interviews of family medicine applicants (interviewees), and faculty and staff who interviewed these applicants (interviewers), and (2) to describe interviewers' and interviewees' opinions of use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) in the recruitment process as well as during clinical practice. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Participants were both interviewers and candidates who applied to the McGill University Family Medicine Residency Program for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 cycles. RESULTS: The study population was constituted by N = 132 applicants and N = 60 interviewers. The response rate was 91.7% (55/60) for interviewers and 43.2% (57/132) for interviewees. Both interviewers (43.7%) and interviewees (68.5%) were satisfied with connecting through virtual interviews. Interviewers (43.75%) and interviewees (55.5%) would prefer for both options to be available. Both interviewers (50%) and interviewees (72%) were interested in emerging technologies. Almost all interviewees (95.8%) were interested in learning about AI and VR and its application in clinical practice with the majority (60.8%) agreeing that it should be taught within medical training. CONCLUSION: Although experience of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic has been positive for both interviewees and interviewers, the findings of this study suggest that it will be unlikely that virtual interviews completely replace in-person interviews for selecting candidates for family medicine residency programs in the long term as participants value aspects of in-person interviews and would want a choice in format. Since incoming family medicine physicians seem to be eager to learn and utilize emerging technologies such as AI and VR, educators and institutions should consider family physicians' needs due to the changing technological landscape in family medicine education.
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 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».