Comparing Medical Students’ and Preceptors’ Views of a Longitudinal Preclerkship Family Medicine Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing popularity of longitudinal primary care experiences in North America and beyond, there is a paucity of work assessing these medical undergraduate experiences using reliable and valid questionnaires. Our objective in this study was to evaluate a new preclerkship longitudinal family medicine experience (LFME) course at McGill University by assessing family physician preceptors' self-reported ratings of the perceived effects of this course, and to compare their responses with ratings provided by medical students who completed the course. METHODS: This study is part of a larger evaluative research project assessing the first edition of the LFME. Students (N=187) and preceptors (N=173) of the 2013-2014 cohort were invited to complete separate online questionnaires in the spring through summer of 2014. The preceptor survey contained 53 items, 14 of which were nearly identical to items in the student survey (published elsewhere) and served as the basis for comparing preceptor and student ratings of the LFME. RESULTS: Ninety-nine preceptors (57% response rate; 55% female) and 120 students (64% response rate; 58% female) completed the surveys. Preceptors and students did not significantly differ in their overall ratings of the course, as both groups were satisfied with the quality of the LFME and felt it was an appropriate and valuable educational experience. However, preceptors had more positive ratings regarding their role and the benefits of the course than did medical students. CONCLUSION: This study corroborates prior work showing extensive perceived benefits of longitudinal preclerkship exposure to primary care; however, preceptors were found to report more positive reviews of the course than students. This study also provides new innovative tools to assess students' and preceptors' perceptions of longitudinal, preclerkship family medicine courses available for use over time and in different educational contexts.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".