A Framework for Understanding International Medical Graduate Challenges During Transition Into Fellowship Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have highlighted unique needs of international medical graduates (IMG) during their transition into medical training programs; however, limited data exist on IMG needs specific to fellowship training. PURPOSES: We conducted the following mixed-method study to determine IMG fellow training needs during the transition into fellowship training programs in psychiatry and surgery. METHODS: The authors conducted a mixed-methods study consisting of an online survey of IMG fellows and their supervisors in psychiatry or surgery fellowship training programs and individual interviews of IMG fellows. The survey assessed (a) fellows' and supervisors' perceptions on IMG challenges in clinical communication, health systems, and education domains and (b) past orientation initiatives. In the second phase of the study, IMG fellows were interviewed during the latter half of their fellowship training, and perceptions regarding orientation and adaptation to fellowship in Canada were assessed. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive and Mann-Whitney U statistics. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 76% (35/46) and 69% (35/51) for IMG fellows and supervisors, respectively. Fellows reported the greatest difficulty with adapting to the hospital system, medical documentation, and balancing one's professional and personal life. Supervisors believed that fellows had the greatest difficulty with managing language and slang in Canada, the healthcare system, and an interprofessional team. In Phase 2, fellows generated themes of disorientation, disconnection, interprofessional team challenges, a need for IMG fellow resources, and a benefit from training in a multicultural setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results highlight the need for IMG specific orientation resources for fellows and supervisors. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs may be a useful framework for understanding IMG training needs.
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 | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".