Culture in medical education: comparing a Thai and a Canadian residency programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Globalisation initiatives in medical education are premised on a universal model of medical education. This study was conducted to challenge this premise by empirically examining the impact of culture on the practice of medical education in anaesthesia residency training programmes in Thailand and Canada. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods comparative case study research approach, one Thai and one Canadian anaesthesia residency training programme were examined with respect to curriculum, educational practices and teacher beliefs. Data sources included observations of academic and clinical teaching, programme document analysis, surveys and faculty interviews. Recruitment resulted in a 76% survey response rate and 13 interview participants at the Thai site and a 61% survey response rate and 16 interview participants at the Canadian site. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to compare survey responses between the two programmes. The qualitative analysis consisted of primary coding, clustering into pattern codes, and identifying themes and sub-themes. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data for each case was followed by a cross-case analysis. RESULTS: The two programmes were similarly organised and had similar curricular content. However, important differences emerged in curricular emphasis, educational practices, and teacher beliefs and values. Thai faculty staff emphasised knowledge and scholarship, described the faculty-resident relationship as 'familial' and focused on 'teaching methods'. Canadian faculty members emphasised clinical abilities, described the faculty-resident relationship as 'collegial' and focused on 'learning environments'. These findings were related to broader cultural differences that influenced how the curriculum was interpreted and enacted at each site. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that although the scientific and knowledge base of medical education is universal, its enactment may be influenced by culture and context. Globalisation initiatives in medical education must be tempered by recognition of these considerations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".