MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947146392 · doi:10.18438/b8gk5v

Questions Remain about Whether EBM Competencies Learned in Medical School are Retained in Residency

2007· article· en· W1947146392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suzanne Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationGraduate medical educationResidency trainingMedicinePsychologyMedical schoolFamily medicineAccreditationPedagogyContinuing education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To assess medical graduates’ use of evidence based medicine (EBM) in residency, self-perception of EBM skills, attitudes toward EBM, and the impact of a formal EBM curriculum in their third undergraduate year. Design – A longitudinal follow-up study by self-administered questionnaire. Setting – Internal medicine residency programs in US hospitals. Subjects – A convenience sample of 2001 and 2002 graduates of the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria (UICOM-P) (n=78), and their respective residency program directors (n=72). Methods – A student graduate questionnaire (SGQ) was sent to all members of UICOM-P’s 2001 and 2002 graduating classes who had completed the EBM course during their M-3 Internal Medicine clerkship. A program director questionnaire (PDQ), similar to the SGQ, was sent to the graduates’ residency program directors. The research instrument was tested with a pilot group prior to use, but not validated. The questionnaires consisted of 4 main sections. The first section examined formal and informal EBM programs in the graduates’ residency curriculum. The second section consisted of a self-assessment of EBM skills by the residents and an assessment of those skills by their program directors. The third section asked graduates to compare their EBM skills to those of their fellow residents who had not been students at UICOM-P. Similarly, in the third section of the PDQ, program directors were asked to compare the EBM skills of UICOM-P graduates and non-UICOM-P graduates participating in the residency program. The last section concerned professional and demographic characteristics. Copies of the surveys were mailed out to non-responders after 6 weeks. Results were collated but statistical analysis was not applied. Main results – The response rate was 32% for residents and 35% for program directors. The number of incomplete surveys was not reported. Forty-four percent of all respondents reported having a formal EBM curriculum for residents, and 76% reported an informal curriculum. For both formal and informal programs, the most common teaching formats were journal clubs, followed by lectures, teaching rounds, morning reports, bedside consultations, ambulatory clinics and seminars. In section two of the questionnaires, both residents and program directors rated the residents’ EBM skills similarly. However, the residents rated their skills in searching the literature and application of findings to clinical practice higher than the program directors. Program directors also rated the residents’ skills in understanding statistics and tests higher than the residents themselves. Twenty-four percent of both residents and program directors rated the UICOM-P graduates as “very competent” or “extremely competent” in EBM skills (50). Only 35% of program directors and 27% of residents rated the UICOM-P graduates’ EBM skills as “usually better” or “always better” than their peers who were not UICOM-P graduates (50). Conclusion - The authors of this study conclude that, for UICOM-P graduates, “it might be implied from these results that the EBM skills gained during medical school were retained through their medical school graduation and into their residency training” (51). However, this study has methodological weaknesses which make it difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207