110: Ethics Learning Needs of Paediatric Residents: A View from All Sides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethics and professionalism education is a required component of paediatric residency training. However, a dearth of established curricula persists and there is no consensus as to the topics that should be included. Significant barriers exist in the form of curricular crowding, making it imperative that educators prioritize residents' ethics learning needs. Previous studies have been limited by the use of trainees' self-reported needs alone. This is the first study to investigate the ethics learning needs of paediatric residents using a 360° assessment. Our hypothesis was that paediatricians and/or allied health care professionals (HCPs) would identify ethics learning needs not appreciated by trainees. To identify and prioritize paediatric residents' ethics learning needs using a 360° survey-based assessment. To determine if differences exist between paediatric residents' ethics learning needs as perceived by residents, paediatricians and allied HCPs. Paediatric residents, respiratory therapists (RTs), registered nurses (RNs) and paediatricians working at a university children's hospital rated the importance of twelve ethics themes as learning needs for trainees using a Likert scale. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the ratings of importance for each theme between the four groups of respondents. Pairwise comparisons were conducted using Dunn's procedure with a Bonferroni correction. Response rates were 65%, 70%, 57% and 47% for residents (n=15), paediatricians (n=30), RTs (n=8) and RNs (n=71), respectively. The rated importance of seven of twelve ethics themes differed significantly between the four groups. Paediatricians rated five ethics themes as significantly more important than did RTs/RNs. Residents rated genetic screening/testing as significantly more important than RTs/RNs. A rank order list of ethics themes was generated for each group of respondents based on the percentage of respondents in each group rating the ethics theme as very important. Four ethics themes were in the top six for all groups of respondents. These results provide an interprofessional assessment of paediatric residents' perceived ethics learning needs. High priority ethics topics were identified, allowing for a targeted curriculum in the context of limited instructional time. Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no instances where trainees rated an ethics learning need as less important than did paediatricians or allied HCPs.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".