An integrated undergraduate pain curriculum, based on IASP curricula, for six Health Science Faculties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain education, especially for undergraduates, has been identified as important to changing problematic pain practices, yet, no published data were found describing an integrated, interprofessional pain curriculum for undergraduate students. Therefore, this project aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate an integrated pain curriculum, based on the International Association for the Study of Pain curricula [http://www.iasp-pain.org/curropen.html], for 540 students from six Health Science Faculties/Departments. Over an 18-month period, the University of Toronto Centre for the Study of Pain's Interfaculty Pain Education Committee developed a 20-h undergraduate pain curriculum to be delivered during a 1-week period. Students from Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Physical Therapy, and Occupational Therapy participated as part of their 2nd or 3rd year program. Teaching strategies included large and small groups, Standardized Patients, and 63 facilitators. Evaluation methods included: (a) pre- and post-tests of the Pain Knowledge and Beliefs Questionnaire (PKBQ) and (b) Daily Content and Process Questionnaire (DCPQ) to obtain feedback about process, content, and format across the curriculum's 5 days. A significant improvement in pain knowledge and beliefs was demonstrated (t = 181.28, P < 0.001), although non-responders were problematic at the post-test. DCPQ overall ratings of 'exceeding or meeting expectations' ranged from 74 to 92%. Ratings were highest for the patient-related content and panel, and the small-group discussions with Standardized Patients. Overall evaluations were positive, and statistically significant changes were demonstrated in students' pain knowledge and beliefs. This unique and valuable learning opportunity will be repeated with some modifications next year.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it