Perceptions of competency‐based medical education from medical student discussion forums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education (CBME) is becoming widely implemented in medical education. Trainees' perceptions of CBME are important factors in the implementation and acceptance of CBME. Online discussion groups allow unique insight into trainees' perceptions of CBME during residency training. METHODS: We analysed 867 posts from 20 discussion threads in Premed 101 (Canadian) and 2756 posts from 50 threads in Student Doctor Network (SDN) (American) using NVivo 11. Inductive content analysis was used to develop a data-driven coding scheme that evolved throughout the analysis. Measures were taken to ensure the trustworthiness of findings, including co-coding of a subsample of 600 posts, peer debriefing, consensus-based analytical decision making and the maintenance of an audit trial. RESULTS: Medical residents and students participating in the discussion forums emphasised select themes regarding the implementation of CBME in residency training. Concerns about CBME in Canada primarily involved its implications for the length of residency and post-residency opportunities. Posts on the American forum had a prominent focus on differing areas, such as the subjectivity in the assessment of core competencies and the role of CBME in termination of a resident's position. CONCLUSIONS: Online discussion groups have the potential to provide unique insight into perceptions of CBME. The presented concerns may have implications for refining the model of CBME and illustrate the importance of providing clarification for trainees regarding length of training and evaluation structures from those involved in designing of CBME 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 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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.001 |
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.
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".