Determining the benefits and objectives of a child health residency program for Canadian rural family physicians: An international qualitative research study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To clarify the need for an advanced child health training program for Canadian rural family physicians, and to determine the key learning objectives to enable graduates to become community leaders in child and youth health care. DESIGN: Qualitative educational research study. SETTING: Canada and Australia. METHODS: To gather data, the authors carried out semistructured interviews and focus groups with child care consultants, Canadian rural family physicians, child patients and parents, family medicine residents and Australian rural family physicians. Standards of qualitative methodology were applied to identify themes and subthemes. RESULTS: IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A FAMILY MEDICINE CHILD HEALTH PROGRAM WOULD PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS: enhanced care by family physicians, improved access to child care, increased attractiveness of family medicine as a career and reduced 'specialty burden'. FIVE KEY LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR GRADUATES WERE IDENTIFIED: the ability to provide child-centred care, to care for acutely or critically ill children, to care for children with complex needs, to recognize and act on 'red flags', and to provide behavioural and mental health care. The Australian general practitioners confirmed that their training provided most of these benefits, and enabled them to achieve the objectives identified. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that multiple stakeholders believed that advanced training in child health for rural family physicians would provide better care for children. The study also identified key learning objectives for the program. The present research led to the establishment of a Family Medicine Child Health Residency Program (www.familymedicineuwo.ca/PostGrad/PGY3/ChildHealth.aspx) at The University of Western Ontario (London, Ontario).
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 | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".