Canadian Medical Students’ Perceptions of Public Health Education in the Undergraduate Medical Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the perceptions and attitudes of Canadian medical students toward their undergraduate medical public health curriculum and to identify student suggestions and priorities for curriculum change. METHOD: Five focus groups of 11 or 12 medical students from all years of medical school were recruited at McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, and University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine between February and April 2006. A professional facilitator was hired to conduct the focus groups using a unique, computer-based facilitation system. Questions in both the focus group and an accompanying survey sought to determine medical students' understanding and exposure to public health and how this impacted their attitudes and choices toward careers in the public health medical specialty of community medicine. The transcripts were independently reviewed and analyzed by each of the authors to identify themes. RESULTS: Four major themes related to students' desired curriculum change were identified: (1) poor educational experiences in public health courses, (2) lack of positive role models, especially exposure to community medicine specialists, (3) emphasis on statistics and epidemiology, and (4) negative attitudes toward public health topics. CONCLUSIONS: Students are disillusioned, disengaged, and disappointed with the public health curriculum currently being provided at the Canadian medical schools studied. Many medical students would prefer a public health curriculum that is more challenging and has more applied field experience and exposure to public health physician role models.
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 | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".