Developing Canadian oncology education goals and objectives for medical students: a national modified Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that there is a deficiency in focused oncology teaching during medical school in Canada. This study aimed to develop oncology education goals and objectives for medical students through consensus of oncology educators from across Canada. METHODS: In 2014 we created a comprehensive list of oncology education objectives using existing resources. Experts in oncology education and undergraduate medical education from all 17 Canadian medical schools were invited to participate in a 3-round modified Delphi process. In round 1, the participants scored the objectives on a 9-point Likert scale according to the degree to which they agreed an objective should be taught to medical students. Objectives with a mean score of 7.0 or greater were retained, those with a mean score of 1.0-3.9 were excluded, and those with a mean score of 4.0-6.9 were discussed at a round 2 Web meeting. In round 3, the participants voted on inclusion and exclusion of the round 2 objectives. RESULTS: Thirty-four (92%) of the 37 invited oncology educators, representing 14 medical schools, participated in the study. They included oncologists, family physicians, members of undergraduate medical education curriculum committees and a psychologist. Of the 214 objectives reviewed in round 1, 146 received a mean score of 7.0 or greater, and 68 were scored 4.0-6.9; no objective received a mean score below 4.0. Nine new objectives were suggested. The main themes of participants' comments were to minimize the number of objectives and to aim objectives at the knowledge level required for family physicians. In round 2, the participants were able to combine 28 of the objectives with other existing objectives. In round 3, 7 of the 49 objectives received consensus of at least 75% for inclusion. The final Canadian Oncology Goals and Objectives for Medical Students contained 10 goals and 153 objectives. INTERPRETATION: Through a systematic process, we created a comprehensive, consensus-based set of oncology goals and objectives to facilitate the design of undergraduate medical education curricula and improve oncology education for medical students.
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 | 0.046 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".