Description of a teaching method for research education for palliative care healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the rapidly growing availability of palliative care services, there is still much to be done in order to better support clinicians who are starting research programs. Among the barriers identified in the literature, methodological issues and lack of research training programs are often reported. Our aim was to describe an educational research method for healthcare professionals working in palliative care and to report the result of a survey conducted among a three-year sample of students. METHOD: The course was provided for a multidisciplinary group and was open to all healthcare professionals involved in palliative care. It took place over a single session during a full day. We used a 20-question e-survey to assess student outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, current status of their project). RESULTS: We received answers from 83 of the 119 students (70%) who took the course. The majority were physicians (n = 62, 75%), followed by nurses (n = 17, 21%). During the class, students assessed the role of the teacher as an information provider (n = 51, 61%), role model (n = 36, 43%), and facilitator (n = 33, 40%), and considered all of these roles as suitable, with a score of 3.9-4.7 out of 5. Participants reported a high level of support from the teacher, with a mean score of 8.2 (SD, 1.7) out of 10, and good overall satisfaction with a mean score of 7.6 (1.8). Finally, 51 participants (77%) were able to start their research project after the class, 27 (41%) to complete it, and 8 (12%) to submit their research to a journal or conference. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our results suggest that newer teaching methods such as roleplay, group work, and target acquisition are feasible and effective in a palliative research curriculum. Additional studies are needed to confirm the objective outputs of educational interventions, including research outputs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".