MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586802530 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v7i1.1802

Inclusive Health Conference: conference-based education as an intervention to address medical education deficits

2017· article· en· W2586802530 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jocelyn Andruko, Brandon Christensen, Melanie Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsTransgenderCurriculumLesbianHealth careQueerInclusion (mineral)Medical educationIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedicineFamily medicineNursingPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Physicians are responsible for the health of all patients, but medical students receive inadequate training on the health- care needs of LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) patients [1]. Education about cultural issues and proper termi- nology are also under-addressed. Healthcare practices that cannot demonstrate inclusivity risk alienating patients and perpetuating barriers to patient care for sexual and gender minorities [2]. Methods: In 2013, medical students created the Inclusive Health Conference to address these educational deficits. Experts were in- vited to present a curriculum including disorders of sexual development, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, care for transgender patients, and development of inclusive practices. Self-identified sexual minority patients were also invited to share their experiences. Following these sessions, healthcare professionals and students were asked to complete a survey on knowledge and level of comfort with LGBTQ care. Results: A majority of respondents stated that they “better understand LGBTQ health issues” (2015 mean 4.39, n = 41; 2016 mean 4.31, n = 52), “better understand social issues related to LGBTQ healthcare” (2015 mean 4.32, n = 41; 2016 mean 4.31, n = 52) and “feel more comfortable exploring and discussing these issues with LGBTQ people” (2015 mean 4.43, n = 41; 2016 mean 4.17, n = 52). Conclusions: Based on survey results, this was a successful solution to a critical omission in medical curricula. Of note, the conference also drew attention to this important issue, led to financial sponsorship by the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Medicine and Den- tistry, initiated curriculum updates, and inspired similar events at other institutions. RÉSUMÉ Introduction: Les médecins sont responsables de la santé de tous les patients, mais les étudiants en médecine reçoivent une forma- tion inadéquate en ce qui a trait aux besoins de soins de santé des patients LGBTQ (lesbienne, gai, bisexuel, trans et queer) [1]. Les enjeux culturels et la terminologie appropriée sont également trop peu abordés au cours de la formation. Les pratiques de soins de santé qui ne font pas preuve d’inclusion risquent d’aliéner les patients et de perpétuer les obstacles aux soins de santé pour les per- sonnes de minorités sexuelles et de genre [2]. Méthodes: En 2013, des étudiants en médecine ont créé la conférence Inclusive Health (santé inclusive) afin de combler ce manque éducationnel. Des experts ont été invités à présenter un curriculum qui incluait des désordres de développement sexuel, la prophylaxie préexposition contre le VIH, les soins aux patients transgenres, et l’élaboration de pratiques inclusives. Des patients ayant volontaire- ment déclaré leur appartenance à une minorité sexuelle ont également été invités à partager leurs expériences. À la suite de ces sé- ances, les professionnels de la santé et les étudiants ont rempli un sondage sur leurs connaissances et leur niveau de confort dans la prestation des soins de santé aux personnes LGBTQ. Résultats: La majorité des personnes interrogées ont affirmé « mieux comprendre les problèmes de santé des personnes LGBTQ » (moyenne de 4,39 en 2015, n = 41 ; moyenne de 4,31 en 2016, n = 52), « mieux comprendre les enjeux sociaux liés à la prestation des soins de santé aux personnes LGBTQ » (moyenne de 4,32 en 2015, n = 41 ; moyenne de 4,31 en 2016, n = 52) et « se sentir plus à l’aise d’explorer et de discuter de ces problèmes avec les personnes LGBTQ » (moyenne de 4,43 en 2015, n = 41 ; moyenne de 4,17 en 2016, n = 52). Conclusions: En se fondant sur les résultats du sondage, la conférence s’est avérée efficace pour contrer une omission importante dans les curriculums médicaux. En outre, la conférence a attiré l’attention sur cet important problème, a mené à un parrainage par la Faculté de médecine et de médecine dentaire de l’Université d’Alberta, a entraîné des mises à jour aux curriculums médicaux, et a inspiré des évènements semblables à d’autres établissements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207