“In our own words”: Defining medical professionalism from a Latin American perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Latin America has experienced a tremendous growth in a number of medical schools, and there are concerns about their quality of training in critical areas such as professionalism. Medical professionalism is a cultural construct. The aim of the study was to compare published definitions of medical professionalism from Latin American and non-Latin American regions and to design an original and culturally sound definition. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used with three phases. First, a systematic search and thematic analysis of the literature were conducted. Second, a Delphi methodology was used to design a local definition of medical professionalism. Third, we used a qualitative approach that combined focus groups and personal interviews with students and deans from four medical schools in Chile to understand various aspects of professionalism education. The data were analyzed using NVivo software. RESULTS: A total of 115 nonrepeated articles were identified in the three databases searched. No original definitions of medical professionalism from Latin America were found. Twenty-six articles met at least one of the three decisional criteria defined and were fully reviewed. Three theoretical perspectives were identified: contractualism, personalism, and deontology. Attributes of medical professionalism were classified in five dimensions: personal, interpersonal, societal, formative, and practical. Participants of the Delphi panel, focus groups, and personal interviews included 36 medical students, 12 faculties, and four deans. They took a personalistic approach to design an original definition of medical professionalism and highlighted the relevance of respecting life, human dignity, and the virtue of prudence in medical practice. Students and scholars differed on the value given to empathy and compassion. DISCUSSION: This study provides an original and culturally sound definition of medical professionalism that could be useful in Latin American medical schools. The methodology used in the study could be applied in other regions as a basis to develop culturally appropriate definitions of medical professionalism.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".