118: Injury Prevention and Control Education in Paediatric and Paediatric Emergency Medicine Training Programs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injury is the leading cause of death in Canadians ages 1–44 years. As providers of both well and acute care for children, general paediatricians and paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians are strategically positioned to implement injury prevention and control practices. Currently, there is no literature describing the injury prevention and control curriculum within Canadian postgraduate training programs in either Paediatric Medicine or PEM. We determined the proportion of Canadian Paediatric and PEM training programs that incorporated a formalized injury prevention and control component within their curriculum. We secondarily determined the proportion of programs where injury control currently has a high priority within the curriculum, as well as the proportion of program directors (PDs) who felt that injury control should be a high priority topic. A novel cross-sectional survey was developed, based on expert opinion and existing literature. An electronic survey was distributed to all potential participants using modified Dillman methodology (via Survey Gizmo). It was sent to all Royal College Paediatric (n=17) and PEM (n=10) PDs from May to June 2014. The 20 question tool was pre and pilot tested prior to implementation. An overall response rate of 89% (24/27) was obtained (16/17 for Paediatric programs and 8/10 for PEM programs). The median number of trainees enrolled in the programs was 6.5 [IQR 5.5–7] for PEM and 37 [IQR 25–52] for Paediatric Medicine. Fifty seven percent [95% CI 25% to 84%] of PEM programs and 44% [95% CI 23% to 67%] of Paediatric programs formally incorporated injury prevention and control within their curriculum. Among these programs, 70% had between 1 h and 5 h total instruction time for injury epidemiology and prevention. All PEM PDs and 86% of Paediatric PDs felt that injury prevention and control should be mandatory in residency training (either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’). No PEM or Paediatric PDs reported injury control as high priority (defined as 8–10 on a Likert scale) currently within the curriculum. However, 33% [95% CI 10% to 70%] of PEM PDs and 7% [95% CI 1% to 31%] of Paediatric PDs felt injury control should have high priority within their curriculum. Only half of surveyed PDs incorporate injury control training within their Pediatric Medicine or PEM curriculum. Despite its importance in securing a healthy future for Canada's children, PDs currently do not feel it merits high priority within the curriculum. Further research is needed to understand this decision, before any effective changes can be implemented to curriculum content.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".