Canadian residents’ perceptions of cross-cultural care training in graduate medical school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada specifies both respect for diversity as a requirement of professionalism and culturally sensitive provision of medical care. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the perception of preparedness and attitudes of medical residents to deliver cross-cultural care. METHODS: The Cross Cultural Care Survey was sent via e-mail to all Faculty of Medicine residents (approx. 450) in an academic health sciences centre. Comparisons were made between psychiatry residents, family medicine residents, and other residency groups with respect to training, preparedness, and skillfulness in delivering cross-cultural care. RESULTS: Seventy-three (16%) residents responded to the survey. Residents in psychiatry and family medicine reported significantly more training and formal evaluation regarding cross-cultural care than residents in other programs. However, there were no significant differences in self-reported preparedness and skillfulness. Residents in family medicine were more likely to report needing more practical experience working with diverse groups. Psychiatry residents were less likely to report inadequate cross-cultural training. CONCLUSION: While most residents reported feeling skillful and prepared to work with culturally diverse groups, they report receiving little additional instruction or formal evaluation on this topic, particularly in programs other than psychiatry and family medicine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".