Analyzing international clinical education practices for Canadian rehabilitation students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical training in low-income countries has become increasingly popular among pre-licensure trainees from high-income countries. The Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training ("WEIGHT Guidelines") were designed to identify and inform the complex and contentious field of international clinical education. The purpose of this study was to use the WEIGHT Guidelines to evaluate an international clinical internship programme for Master's-level rehabilitation students at a Canadian university. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight Canadian rehabilitation researchers, educations and/or clinicians responsible for administering international internships across three clinical training programmes. Interview questions were informed by the WEIGHT Guidelines. Directed content analysis was used to identify priorities for policy, practice and research. RESULTS: Five themes relating to strengthening international clinical education were identified: (1) from one-time internships to long-term partnerships, (2) starting a discussion about "costs", (3) a more informed approach to student selection, (4) expanding and harmonizing pre-departure training across disciplines, and (5) investing in post-internship debriefing. CONCLUSIONS: International clinical education is fraught with ethical, pedagogical and logistical issues that require recognition and ongoing management. This is the first study to use the WEIGHT Guidelines as a qualitative research tool for assessing an existing global health education programme. Results highlight new priorities for action at the Canadian "sending institution", including more explicit attention to the costs (broadly defined) borne by all parties. A crucial next step is deepened engagement with educational partners at the "receiving organizations" based in low-income countries to nurture dialogue regarding reciprocity, trust and sustainability of the partnership. Education research is also needed that evaluates models of pre-departure training and post-internship debriefing for trainees.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".