The learning experiences of general practice registrars in the South East of Scotland
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To train to be a general practitioner in the U.K. a doctor must spend two years in hospital training posts and one year in general practice as a general practice registrar (GPR). Concern has been expressed in the literature about both the duration and adequacy of general practice training. A literature review identified that there was limited knowledge of and understanding about the learning experiences of GPRs. The aim of the study was to describe and interpret the learning experiences of GPRs in the South East of Scotland during their year in general practice. The methodology was derived from Denzin's concept of Interpretivism and involved in depth interviews over time with GPRs and thick description to capture and interpret the GPRs learning experiences. Two cohorts of 24 GPRs were recruited, cohort one ran from September 2002 to July 2003 and cohort two from September 2003 to August 2004. The GPRs were interviewed on three occasions during their year. In addition to the interviews six GPR focus groups and six GP trainer focus groups were held over the period December 2002 to September 2003. 21 GPRs in cohort one completed all three interviews and 20 GPRs in cohort two. All the participating GPRs completed at least two interviews. The results were interpreted within the educational concept of the curriculum. Four main curricula were identified during the GPR year: these were the formal, assessment, individual and hidden. Each independently contributed to the GPRs learning and also interacted synergistically at various times during the year. In the last quarter of the year there was a tension between the requirements of the assessment and individual curricula. The individual curriculum which was composed of the GPRs clinical experiences and in particular epiphanies was the main driver of GPR learning. Epiphanies were identified by GPRs as having the most significant impact on their learning. Central to this learning was the contribution of their general practice trainer who supported their learning both through the development of the practice learning environment and the promotion of reflection and self directed learning. GPR learning during the year was an iterative process, which involved a reflective and supported interaction between the GPR, their clinical experiences, epiphanies and their trainer. Through this process the GPRs became self directed and reflective learners and developed individual learning networks which led to changes in the way they practiced medicine. This process also led to the socialisation of their learning and promoted their integration into the culture of working general practice, through which they were exposed to the working realities of life as a general practitioner and these experiences had a critical effect on their future career choice. A number of important policy implications were identified which have implications for the present and future direction of training for general practice. The process of thick description and the longitudinal nature of the study allowed for a new interpretation of the learning experiences of GPRs and added to the knowledge and understanding of how GPRs learn during their training.
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 | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».