Wellness and Impairment Content in Schools of Medicine Curricula in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical students experience numerous stressors, ranging from academic demands to financial strain. These stressors contribute to medical students having a substantial incidence of psychological problems, substance abuse, and seeking of mental health treatment. Left untreated, these problems can result in dysfunctional habit development and subsequent professional impairment. Research has demonstrated the benefits of wellness-impairment educational programs in medical education, but it is unknown to what degree the topics of wellness and impairment are included in medical school curricula. To assess this, a 13-item survey instrument was sent to associate deans in 142 schools of allopathic medicine; 71 (50.0%) responded. The majority of respondents reported that physician impairment (95.8%) and wellness (77.5%) are addressed in their school of medicine curricula, although the degree to which these topics were included varied. Access to other health-promoting resources on campus was also assessed and is discussed. Results suggested that there is a disparity between primary and secondary prevention approaches on school of medicine campuses. Implications for curricula and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".