Rural surgeons’ attitudes towards and usage of evidence‐based medicine in rural surgical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rural and remote surgical practice presents unique barriers to the uptake of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm. As medical and education institutions around Australia develop practices and support for EBM, there are growing questions about how EBM is situated in the rural and remote context. The Monash University Department of Surgery at Monash Medical Centre implemented a study to explore the current understandings, attitudes and practices of rural surgeons towards the EBM paradigm. METHODS: Descriptive survey of rural surgeons based in a tertiary care environment. RESULTS: The overall results of the survey demonstrate that: (1) rural surgeons have a good understanding of EBM; (2) EBM evidence is somewhat useful but not very important to clinical decision making; and (3) while rural surgeons are relatively confident in most sources listed, they are most confident in their own judgment and clinical practice guidelines, and least confident in telephone contact with colleagues. Rural surgeons' understanding, usage and confidence in EBM purports that rural surgeons have contradictory, ambivalent and complex views of the EBM paradigm and its place in rural surgical practice. DISCUSSION: Professional isolation and context specificity are important to consider when extending the EBM paradigm to rural surgical practice and understanding the EBM uptake in the rural surgery context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.271 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".