Palliative Care Education in the Family Medicine Clerkship:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inadequate training of medical students in palliative care has been identified as a barrier to its universal provision. Family medicine physicians frequently provide these services, yet the extent of palliative care training in the family medicine clerkship has been unknown. This study describes the status of palliative care training in the family medicine clerkship, as well as clerkship director perceptions of this training. METHODS: Data were attained through a cross-sectional survey of 141 US and Canadian family medicine clerkship directors administered in fall 2016. Survey items included clerkship director perceived value, interest, and background in palliative care education; presence of educational objectives; hours of training provided; and perceived barriers to palliative care instruction. RESULTS: Of the clerkship directors who responded (120/141, 81.5%), 31 (25.8%) reported providing no palliative care education and 75 (62.5%) reported palliative care competencies were not specifically assessed. Background in palliative care and explicit educational objectives were associated with more hours of training in palliative care. Clerkship director training in palliative care correlated with value of teaching it in the clerkship. CONCLUSION: Palliative care education in the family medicine clerkship is prevalent but a large portion of clerkships do not offer it, and the majority of clerkship directors do not evaluate this learning. Our study found a positive correlation between clerkship director training in palliative care and value placed on palliative training in the family medicine clerkship. Assessing this training in the family medicine clerkship and pursuing additional clerkship director training in the subject could improve the overall quality of education provided.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".