Medical faculty as humanistic physicians and teachers: the perceptions of students at innovative and traditional medical schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The training of caring physicians represents an important goal of medical education. Little is known however, on whether medical faculty constitute good role models for teaching humanistic skills to medical students. In this study, we examined to what extent medical students at innovative and traditional schools perceived their teachers as humanistic physicians and teachers. We also explored whether pre-clinical and clinical students shared the same perceptions. METHODS: A mail survey was conducted in Canada of all second-year students and senior clerks at one innovative medical school (problem-based learning (PBL), patient-centred, community-oriented) and three traditional medical schools. Students were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the majority of their teachers behaved as humanistic physicians and teachers; 10 statements were used. Overall, 65% of the 1039 students returned the questionnaire. RESULTS: Over 25% of second-year students and 40% of senior clerks did not agree that their teachers behaved as humanistic caregivers with patients or were good role models in teaching the doctor-patient relationship. More than half of second-year students and senior clerks did not agree that their teachers valued human contact with them or were supportive of students who had difficulties. There were few differences in the way medical students at innovative and traditional schools perceived their teachers' humanistic qualities. At the pre-clinical level however, there were more students from the innovative school than from the traditional schools (around 60% vs. 40%, P < 0.005) who agreed that their teachers valued human contact with them and were supportive of students. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the PBL curriculum fosters better teacher-student relationships during the pre-clinical years. They also suggest that an unacceptably large number of medical students are taught by physicians who seem to lack compassion and caring in their interactions with patients. This study questions the adequacy of medical faculty as role models for the acquisition of caring competence by medical students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".