Family Medicine Residents’ Knowledge and Attitudes about End-of-life Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical management of end-of-life symptoms, and the psychosocial care of the dying and their families have not been a specific part of the curriculum for undergraduate medical students or residency training programs. The purpose of our research was to assess family medicine residents' knowledge of and attitudes toward care of the dying. All entering (PGY1) and exiting (PGY2) residents of the Dalhousie University Family Medicine Residency Program were given a 50-item survey on end-of-life care. They survey contains two 25-item subscales concerning attitudes/opinions toward end-of-life care, and knowledge about care. Thirty-one of the 33 entering PGY1s 94%) and 26 of the 30 exiting PGY2s (86%) completed the surveys. Overall attitude scores were felt to be high among both groups, with little difference between them. Areas of concern regarding the adequacy of knowledge were found in relation to managing opioid drugs and the symptom of dyspnea. Interventions are now in development to address these issues in the residency program. In an era of subspecialties, the challenge of integrating these areas into the curriculum without creating rotations in specialist palliative care is an issue faced by most family medicine residency programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".