Students' Perceptions Towards a Family Medicine Attachment Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the students' perceptions about their experience in a family medicine (FM) preceptorship in order to provide a sound basis for offering guidance to family medicine undergraduate education. METHODS: During one full academic year at King Saud University, College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a self administered questionnaire was distributed to all students (n = 177) at the end of each 6 weeks family practice attachment course. Students were asked to rate their attachment by responding to a five-points Likert type scale questionnaire and other Yes/No questions reflecting different important points in teaching and training. RESULTS: The teaching quality and the ability of the General Practitioners (GPs) preceptors to relate to students are rated very highly. Despite that, the majority of students (59.3%) feel their aims were not met during the attachment. Students indicate that there should be more teaching of practical procedure skills, more time allocated for discussion and a greater student involvement in the consultation. CONCLUSION: There is much to be retained in FM preceptorships that involves the caring and communication aspects of learning patient care. The study showed that practical procedure skills are desirable features of a preceptorship programme and that an emphasis on doing vs. observing is preferred by students. Some conditions designed to improve preceptorships are outlined and basic practicalities of adding a preceptorship to a practice are considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".