MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960900187 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002868

Learners as Leaders: A Global Groundswell of Students Leading Choosing Wisely Initiatives in Medical Education

2019· review· en· W2960900187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Born, Christopher Moriates, Victoria Valencia, Marlou Kerssens, Brian M. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreEngineers Without Borders CanadaUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsStewardship (theology)CurriculumSummitMedical educationPolitical scienceHealth carePublic relationsResource (disambiguation)Value (mathematics)MedicinePsychologyPedagogyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource stewardship and reducing low-value care have emerged as urgent priorities for health care delivery systems worldwide. However, few medical schools' curricula include adequate content to allow learners to master the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to this transformation toward value-based health care. This article describes a program to launch student-led curriculum enhancement initiatives in 7 countries. The program, called STARS (Students and Trainees Advocating for Resource Stewardship), was inspired by Choosing Wisely, a campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation that seeks to promote conversations on avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures.The initial STARS model, which originated in Canada in 2015, included a leadership summit, where students from multiple medical schools learned about Choosing Wisely principles, leadership, and advocacy. These students then led grassroots efforts at their local medical schools with faculty and other students to raise awareness and advocate for changes related to resource stewardship. Student-led efforts resulted in the integration of Choosing Wisely principles into case-based learning, the creation of student interest groups and electives, the launch of social media campaigns, and the organization of special presentations by local experts.The rapid spread of similar programs in 6 other countries (Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and the United States) by 2018 suggests that STARS resonates across multiple settings and signals the potential for such a model to advance other important areas in medical education. This article documents results and lessons learned from the first 4 years of the program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.795
GPT teacher head0.705
Teacher spread0.089 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207