Leadership training in a family medicine residency program: Cross-sectional quantitative survey to inform curriculum development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the current status of leadership training as perceived by family medicine residents to inform the development of a formal leadership curriculum. DESIGN: Cross-sectional quantitative survey. SETTING: Department of Family Medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont, in December 2013. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 152 first- and second-year family medicine residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family medicine residents' attitudes toward leadership, perceived level of training in various leadership domains, and identified opportunities for leadership training. RESULTS: Overall, 80% (152 of 190) of residents completed the survey. On a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree), residents rated the importance of physician leadership in the clinical setting as high (6.23 of 7), whereas agreement with the statement "I am a leader" received the lowest rating (5.28 of 7). At least 50% of residents desired more training in the leadership domains of personal mastery, mentorship and coaching, conflict resolution, teaching, effective teamwork, administration, ideals of a healthy workplace, coalitions, and system transformation. At least 50% of residents identified behavioural sciences seminars, a lecture and workshop series, and a retreat as opportunities to expand leadership training. CONCLUSION: The concept of family physicians as leaders resonated highly with residents. Residents desired more personal and system-level leadership training. They also identified ways that leadership training could be expanded in the current curriculum and developed in other areas. The information gained from this survey might facilitate leadership development among residents through application of its results in a formal leadership curriculum.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".