Variability of ethics education in laboratory medicine training programs: Results of an international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethical considerations are increasingly important in medicine. We aimed to determine the mode and extent of teaching of ethics in training programs in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. METHODS: We developed an on-line survey of teaching in areas of ethics relevant to laboratory medicine. Reponses were invited from directors of training programs who were recruited via email to leaders of national organizations. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 80 directors from 24 countries who directed 113 programs. The largest numbers of respondents directed postdoctoral training of scientists (42%) or physicians (33%), post-masters degree programs (33%), and PhD programs (29%). Most programs (82%) were 2years or longer in duration. Formal training was offered in research ethics by 39%, medical ethics by 31%, professional ethics by 24% and business ethics by 9%. The number of reported hours of formal training varied widely, e.g., from 0 to >15h/year for research ethics and from 0 to >15h for medical ethics. Ethics training was required and/or tested in 75% of programs that offered training. A majority (54%) of respondents reported plans to add or enhance training in ethics; many indicated a desire for online resources related to ethics, especially resources with self-assessment tools. CONCLUSION: Formal teaching of ethics is absent from many training programs in clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, with heterogeneity in the extent and methods of ethics training among the programs that provide the training. A perceived need exists for online training tools, especially tools with self-assessment components.
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 | 0.113 | 0.522 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".