MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781910184 · doi:10.1108/lhs-08-2017-0048

Discipline-specific competency-based curricula for leadership learning in medical specialty training

2018· review· en· W2781910184 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Turner, Ming‐Ka Chan, Judy McKimm, Graham Dickson, Tim Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in health services · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyCurriculumLeadership developmentMedical educationMedicineContext (archaeology)Inclusion (mineral)Psychological interventionHealth carePsychologyNursingPedagogyFamily medicinePolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Doctors play a central role in leading improvements to healthcare systems. Leadership knowledge and skills are not inherent, however, and need to be learned. General frameworks for medical leadership guide curriculum development in this area. Explicit discipline-linked competency sets and programmes provide context for learning and likely enhance specialty trainees' capability for leadership at all levels. The aim of this review was to summarise the scholarly literature available around medical specialty-specific competency-based curricula for leadership in the post-graduate training space. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature search method was applied using the Medline, EMBASE and ERIC (education) online databases. Documents were reviewed for a complete match to the research question. Partial matches to the study topic were noted for comparison. Findings In this study, 39 articles were retrieved in full text for detailed examination, of which 32 did not comply with the full inclusion criteria. Seven articles defining discipline-linked competencies/curricula specific to medical leadership training were identified. These related to the areas of emergency medicine, general practice, maternal and child health, obstetrics and gynaecology, pathology, radiology and radiation oncology. Leadership interventions were critiqued in relation to key features of their design, development and content, with reference to modern leadership concepts. Practical implications There is limited discipline-specific guidance for the learning and teaching of leadership within medical specialty training programmes. The competency sets identified through this review may aid the development of learning interventions and tools for other medical disciplines. Originality/value The findings of this study provide a baseline for the further development, implementation and evaluation work required to embed leadership learning across all medical specialty training programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.344
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.110 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadership in health servicesSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207