An evaluation of the 18- and 12-month basic postgraduate training programmes in Denmark.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It was decided that the Danish 18-month internship training should be replaced by a 12-month postgraduate training period including six months of employment at a hospital ward and six months at a general practice/hospital ward. This study examines how the physicians from the old and new programmes evaluate their training, and it explores their attitudes towards the new postgraduate training programme. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a questionnaire by which quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The questionnaire was sent to all physicians following basic postgraduate training in 2009. A total of 1,034 doctors were invited to answer the questionnaire. One quarter of these followed the 12-month programme and three quarters followed the 18-month programme. The response rate was 66%. RESULTS: Doctors following the new 12-month programme felt less professionally equipped and less ready for continued specialisation than doctors of the 18-month programme and they requested a downward adjustment of the learning objectives associated with the educational positions which follow their basic training. Physicians do not expect the increased focus on learning and supervision to compensate for the six-month reduction of the training period. Internal medicine should be included in the basic postgraduate training of all physicians. Training in secondary as well as primary health care was requested. CONCLUSION: The young physicians were reluctant towards the new basic postgraduate training programme.
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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".