Parent assessment of medical student skills in ambulatory pediatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Partnership with parents is a vital part of pediatric medical education, yet few studies have examined parent attitudes towards learners in pediatric settings. METHODS: Questionnaires were used to determine parent and student assessment of professional and clinical skills (primary outcome) and parent attitudes towards 3rd year medical students (secondary outcome) at the University of Alberta. Chi Square, Kendall's Tau and Kappa coefficients were calculated to compare parent and student responses in 8 areas: communication, respect, knowledge, listening, history taking, physical examination, supervision, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with medical student involvement by parents was high: 56.7% of all parents ranked the encounter as 'excellent'. Areas of lesser satisfaction included physician supervision of students. Compared to the parent assessment, students tended to underrate many of their skills, including communication, history taking and physical exam. There was no relationship between parent demographics and their attitude to rating any of the students' skills. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were satisfied with medical student involvement in the care of their children. Areas identified for improvement included increased supervision of students in both history taking and physical examination. This is one of the largest studies examining parent attitudes towards pediatric students. The results may enhance undergraduate curriculum development and teaching in pediatric ambulatory clinics and strengthen the ongoing partnership between the community and teaching clinics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".