Medical Students' Reflections on Transitioning to Their First General Practice Placement: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Transitioning from preclinical to clinical training is a critical milestone of "becoming and being" in a medical student's journey. Despite simulation-based learning, real-world clinical exposure remains indispensable in shaping professional identity. The clinical learning environment is a complex interplay of social, cultural, and organizational factors that influence students' development as future health care professionals. Objective: This study explores medical students' reflections on their first clinical placement in general practice, aiming to understand their experiences, challenges, and the clinical learning environment's role in their learning and developing professional identity formation as a step toward establishing a conceptual framework and a common language for educators, which we hope will promote further advances to support beneficial professional identity formation. Methods: We analyzed reflections from fourth-year medical students following their initial general practice placement. A qualitative descriptive approach grounded in naturalism was employed to explain our participants' transitioning encounters in clear, everyday language to ensure their experiences were presented in their own words, without bias. Content thematic analysis was conducted to identify key themes related to their experiences. Results: Students' reflections revealed a startled cohort unprepared for the epistemological, emotional, and practical realities of clinical work. Many assumed that classroom "knowing" would seamlessly translate into clinical "doing" but were met instead with uncertainty, failure, and emotional overwhelm, often manifesting as shame, guilt, and withdrawal. These experiences illuminated a fracture between knowledge and knowing, underscored by students' prereflective epistemological beliefs and varying degrees of supervisory preparedness. While emotional and cognitive struggles were widespread, rare instances of supportive mentorship and feedback significantly bolstered students' confidence and participation. Conclusions: Reflection offered a valuable window into how students think, feel, and act during this critical transition, but it is not a cure-all. Reflection should be positioned as a developmental and communal tool within a broader scaffolding that includes early skills preparation, role clarity, psychological safety, and trained supervisors. Structured shared reflective circles and narrative listening sessions can help normalize uncertainty, support identity formation, and foster resilience during students' entry into clinical practice and can ease the journey of "becoming and being."
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 | 0,013 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».