Queering the Medical Curriculum: How to Design, Develop, Deliver and Assess Learning Outcomes Relevant to LGBT Health for Health Care Professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p>This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons have specific healthcare needs, and experience unique barriers in accessing health services. Research has suggested that medical practitioners are inadequately prepared to address the needs of the LGBT population. While some strategies for training such practitioners within medical schools have been proposed, few have been evaluated, and the best approach to training physicians in LGBT-focused care has yet to be determined. The purpose of this paper is to assess the effectiveness of the LGBT-focused curriculum currently delivered at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine, specifically in terms of its perceived contribution to students' understanding of LGBT health issues. Results showed that the curriculum introduced at NOSM was effective in increasing knowledge medical students had on LGBT health issues regardless of their pre-existing level of awareness of LGBT health issues. Further, the study found that the level of experience and expertise of the facilitator helping deliver the curriculum was key in achieving this educational goal. We also evaluated three assessment modalities (Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ), Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and Clinical Decision-Making Cases (CDM)) for validity and reliability in testing the course objectives. Results indicate that outcomes can be reliably assessed by these three types of assessments.</ns4:p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it