Forskningstræning for alle læger - også uden for universitetssygehusene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: General practitioners are often interested in doing research but are hampered by lack of time and research training. Interpreting the results of others can also be difficult. For this reason a course in basic research methods for GPs was started in Sweden in 1989. It was originally aimed at GPs but was later extended to hospital physicians as well. The course is given regionally and at present is held in six different locations in southern Sweden as well as in Hillerod, Denmark. The aim of this study is to evaluate the course as part of a research project to recommend changes to the courses in accordance with the course evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The course consists of theory (lectures/seminars six hours a month) and practice (project work) over a period of 18 months. Questionnaires were mailed to the 112 physicians who, starting in 1997 and 1999, completed the course. Eighty-five percent responded to the questionnaire, which asked if the course goals were relevant and if they thought they had achieved them. RESULTS: The most frequent reasons given for attending the course were a desire to learn how to read scientific articles critically and how to carry out one's own research projects. Two thirds of the participants thought that the theoretical lectures and project work had supplemented each other well. Most of the participants thought that the goals were very relevant but fewer--between 57% and 77%--felt those goals had been achieved. DISCUSSION: The course provides important empirical information with regard to future specialist training in Denmark. The plan is for all physicians to have research training--amounting to a total of 60 days--with lectures in research methodology and tutored research projects. The Danish College of General Practitioners has planned research training in accordance with the experience from these courses.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.147 | 0.051 |
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".