Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician assistant (PA) education has undergone substantial change since the late 1960s. After four decades of development, other countries have taken a page from the American experience and launched their own instructional initiatives. The diversity in how different countries approach education and produce a PA for their nation's needs provides an opportunity to make comparisons. The intent of this study was to document and describe PA programs in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and the United States. METHODS: We reviewed the literature and contacted a network of academics in various institutions to obtain primary information. Each contact was asked a set of basic questions about the country, the PA program, and the deployment of graduates. Information on US PA programs was obtained from the Physician Assistant Education Association. RESULTS: At year's end 2010, the following was known about PA development: Australia, one program; Canada, four programs; United Kingdom, four programs; The Netherlands, five programs; the United States, 154 programs. Trends in program per capita growth remain the largest in the United States, followed by The Netherlands and Canada. The shortest program length was 24 months and the longest, 36 months. Outside the United States, almost all programs are situated in an academic health center ([AHC] defined as a medical university, a teaching hospital, and a nursing or allied health school), whereas only one-third of US PA programs are in AHCs. All non-US programs receive public/government funding whereas American programs are predominately private and depend on tuition to fund their programs. CONCLUSION: The PA movement is a global phenomenon. How PAs are being educated, trained, and deployed is known only on the basic level. We identify common characteristics, unique aspects, and trends in PA education across five nations, and set the stage for collaboration and analysis of optimal educational strategies. Additional information is needed on lesser-known PA programs outside these five countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".