Identifying the needs for competency-based education in Europe: a needs assessment of cardiologists across 52 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This international needs assessment was mandated by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to obtain an in-depth understanding of the current gaps and challenges of European cardiology professionals, with the aim to provide evidence for the development of needs-driven educational and professional development activities.Methods: This ethics-approved needs assessment was conducted among cardiologists from all sub-specialties across 56 countries of Europe and the Mediterranean basin. A mixed-methods research approach was used, combining qualitative in-depth interviews and focus groups with a quantitative survey.Results: Seventy-four (74) cardiologists participated in the qualitative phase and 866 completed the survey. Respondents represented 52 of the 56 targeted countries. Three themes were identified: 1) Challenges in the clinical decision-making process, 2) Challenges in establishing the patient-physician relationship, and 3) Sub-optimal team communication and collaboration. Specific gaps and causalities related to each challenge were found. Although most of the gaps were common across countries and sub-specialties, some significant differences were noted.Conclusion: The findings of this needs assessment indicate gaps and challenges in clinical practice across countries and across sub-specialities. Taking cardiology as an example, this study identifies clear areas of focus, especially around issues of collaboration and communication, for targeted competency-based education in Europe.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".