Training in adolescent health: how much have second-year residents had?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of training second-year family medicine residents have had in adolescent medicine. DESIGN: Web-based survey. SETTING: Canadian family medicine residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking second-year family medicine residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residents' self-reported levels of training in adolescent health, specifically, the types of formal and informal education in adolescent health provided by family medicine residency programs. Residents' self-reported comfort in dealing with common health problems in adolescence was also examined. RESULTS: Responses were received from 78 residents representing 11 different programs across Canada. About 38.5% of family medicine residents had attended lectures on adolescent health. Only 37.2% of residents felt comfortable with their knowledge of adolescent health. Respondents indicated that most of their education in adolescent health occurred during family medicine rotations. Only 24% of respondents supplemented their training with attendance at school-based or reproductive health clinics. CONCLUSION: Learning how to deal effectively with teenagers should be an essential part of family medicine training, yet family medicine residents receive only a small amount of exposure to adolescent health issues in primary care settings. Few residents attend school-based or reproductive health clinics even though such activity is recommended by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. A more structured adolescent health experience in family medicine residency would help ensure that Canadian adolescents benefit from informed and experienced family physicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".