Which factors are associated with trainees' confidence in performing obstetric and gynecological ultrasound examinations?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between clinical training characteristics and trainees' level of confidence in performing ultrasound scans independently. METHODS: A cross-sectional e-survey was distributed to members of the national societies of junior obstetricians/gynecologists in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (n = 973). Multiple linear regression models were used to explore the effect that amount of time spent in specialized ultrasound units and clinical experience had on trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify factors that contributed to trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography. Trainees' ultrasound confidence was finally compared with their expected levels of performance. RESULTS: Of the 682 respondents (response rate 70.1%), 621 met the inclusion criteria. Clinical experience and time spent in specialized ultrasound units were predictors of trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently (P < 0.001). Trainees required more than 24 months of clinical experience and 12-24 days of training in specialized ultrasound units in order to feel confident about performing transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound scans independently. Three factors were related to ultrasound confidence: technical aspects, image perception and integration of scan into patient care. There were significant differences between trainees' level of confidence and their expected levels of performance (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experience and time spent in specialized ultrasound units were predictors of trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently. Discrepancies between trainees' confidence and their expected levels of performance raised concerns about the adequacy of current ultrasound training programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".