How do Ontario family medicine residents perform on global health competencies? A multi-institutional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increased interest in global health among medical students, family medicine residents, and medical educators. This paper is based on research to assess confidence in knowledge and skills in global health in family medicine residents in five universities across Ontario. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to 166 first-year family medicine residents from five universities within Ontario. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze residents' confidence in their knowledge and skills in global health. The strength of association between each of the self-perceived knowledge and skills variables was assessed by the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The response rate ranged from 29% to 66% across the five universities. Self-perceived knowledge scores revealed that 34.3% of the respondents were very confident, 51.9% were somewhat confident, and 13.8% were not at all confident about their global health knowledge. Participants' confidence scores were lower in relation to knowledge of access to health care for low income nations (44.3%), and were better on their global health skills related to working in a team (70.9%) and listening actively to patients' concerns (64.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The global health competency scale has identified key areas of strengths and weaknesses of family medicine programs in global health education. This can be used to evaluate and analyze progress over time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 teacher head, 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".