Clinical teaching as part of continuing professional development: Does teaching enhance clinical performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physicians identify teaching as a factor that enhances performance, although existing data to support this relationship is limited. PURPOSE: To determine whether there were differences in clinical performance scores as assessed through multisource feedback (MSF) data based on clinical teaching. METHODS: MSF data for 1831 family physicians, 1510 medical specialists, and 542 surgeons were collected from physicians' medical colleagues, co-workers (e.g., nurses and pharmacists), and patients and examined in relation to information about physician teaching activities including percentage of time spent teaching during patient care and academic appointment. Multivariate analysis of variance, partial eta squared effect sizes, and Tukey's HSD post hoc comparisons were used to determine between group differences in total MSF mean and subscale mean performance scores by teaching and academic appointment data. RESULTS: Higher clinical performance scores were associated with holding any academic appointment and generally with any time teaching versus no teaching during patient care. This was most evident for data from medical colleagues, where these differences existed across all specialty groups. CONCLUSION: More involvement in teaching was associated with higher clinical performance ratings from medical colleagues and co-workers. These results may support promoting teaching as a method to enhance and maintain high-quality clinical performance.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".