Attitudes and practice of Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, Ontario) paediatricians and residents toward literacy promotion in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literacy is a critical health issue in Canada. Paediatricians play an important role in improving literacy skills; however, formal training in literacy education and promotion is not currently part of most Canadian paediatric residency programs. OBJECTIVE: To examine the attitudes and practice of paediatricians and residents at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO [Ottawa, Ontario]) toward literacy promotion. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey of CHEO-affiliated paediatricians, residents and fellows was performed. Survey items addressed demographics, attitudes toward literacy, current practice and previous education/training in literacy education through self-reporting. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven surveys were distributed, with a response rate of 82%. Ninety-one per cent of respondents reported never having formal training in literacy development and promotion. Seventy-four per cent of respondents believed that low literacy is a significant health issue in Canada; however, only 16% of respondents reported regularly discussing literacy with patients and their families. Thirty-nine per cent of general paediatricians reported discussing literacy with patients and families regularly, compared with 10% of paediatric subspecialists (P<0.01). Seventy-one per cent of respondents believed that literacy education should be a standard part of residency education. CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents identified literacy as an important paediatric issue, most paediatricians did not regularly discuss the importance of literacy with their patients. General paediatricians are most likely to discuss literacy. There is a lack of formal education among paediatricians in literacy development and promotion, and the majority of respondents believe that this should be a standard part of paediatric residency training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".