LEARN CPS CURRICULUM: SATISFACTION SURVEY OF FINAL YEAR RESIDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE UPTAKE OF CPS POSITION STATEMENTS AND PRACTICE POINTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) position statements (PSs) or practice points (PPs) are a result of extensive literature review and expert discussions and they provide valuable recommendations for pediatric patient care. More than 180 publications are available to guide learners and practitioners in patient care. There has been no research evaluating uptake and implementation of CPS PSs/PPs. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a survey to evaluate satisfaction of pediatric residents who participated in a new initiative called Learn CPS curriculum. DESIGN/METHODS:Learn CPS curriculum was developed 3 years ago to integrate focused learning of CPS PSs/PPs for final year residents as part of a pediatric residency program. A Learn CPS curriculum session is scheduled for 1 hour every 2 weeks starting in fall of every year. Residents are assigned 12-15 CPS PSs/PPs to read prior to each session. A quiz with MCQs and SAQs is administered for first half of session. Subsequently, answers are reviewed with emphasis on concepts presented in particular CPS PSs/PPs. A satisfaction survey consisting of 13 questions was sent by e-mail to participating residents. The questions in the survey were aimed to capture demographic information, prior knowledge of CPS PSs/PPs, satisfaction with format and components of Learn CPS curriculum sessions and feedback for improvement. RESULTS: Seventeen residents have responded to the survey until now. Prior to Learn CPS curriculum for their respective year, 57% residents had read <50% of CPS PSs/PPs and the most common cited reason was lack of time (71%). While majority of residents agreed that CPS PSs/PPs material was taught through other learning activities in their residency program, only 29% felt that they often or almost always applied it in clinical practice (where applicable). All residents (100%) felt that this initiative provided some to great deal of motivation to read CPS PSs/PPs early in their final year and that it was moderately important to essential in their exam preparation. Most residents were satisfied with the quality of quiz questions (71%) and the ability of post-quiz review to clarify doubts (85%). CONCLUSION:Learn CPS curriculum initiative has been shown to provide motivation to final year pediatric residents to read and learn CPS PSs/PPs. Most residents were satisfied with the format and quality of the quiz and review components. While it may have aided residents in exam preparation, we will need further study to assess whether such an initiative will translate into improved application of these guidelines in patient care.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".