Ethics education for pediatric residents: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethics education and research on medical residents is needed because, unlike medical students or experienced doctors, medical residents have to perform multiple roles simultaneously - student, teacher and clinician - thus exposing them to unique ethical stressors. In this paper we reviewed the literature concerning ethics education in postgraduate pediatrics training programs. Our goal was not to simply describe educational strategies and programs, but also to explore measurements and experiences of current practices to address gaps in ethics education during residency. METHOD: We conducted a structured literature review to explore the extent of ethics education in pediatric residency programs. RESULTS: Twelve relevant studies were found. The studies suggest that existing training regimens are insufficient to meet the real life ethical challenges experienced in actual practice, particularly with respect to palliative care and the commission of clinical errors. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing diversity of culture and beliefs in the clinical workplace is also serving to complicate educational needs. An interdisciplinary approach, spread over the entirety of a physician's training, is a proposed solution worthy of more attention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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; 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".