Perceptions and barriers to competency‐based education in Canadian postgraduate medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: We describe our initial experiences to highlight perceptions and barriers and facilitate implementation at other centers. METHODS: Anonymous online surveys were administered to faculty and residents transitioning to CBE (138 respondents) including (a) Queen's programme leaders (Programme Directors and CBME Leads) [n = 27], (b) Queen's residents [n = 102], and (c) Canadian neurology programme directors [n = 9] and were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. RESULTS: Perceptions were favourable (x = 3.55/5, SD = 0.71) and 81.6% perceived CBE enhanced training; however, perceptions were more favourable among faculty. Queen's programme leaders indicated that CBE did not improve their ability to provide negative feedback. Queen's residents did not perceive improved quality of feedback. National Canadian neurology programme directors did not perceive that their institutions had adequately prepared them. There was variability in barriers perceived across groups. Queen's programme leaders were concerned about resident initiative. Queen's residents felt that assessment selection and faculty responsiveness to feedback were barriers. Canadian neurology programme directors were concerned about access to information technology. RECOMMENDATIONS: Our results indicate that faculty were concerned about the reluctance of residents to actively participate in CBE, while residents were hesitant to assume such a role because of lack of familiarity and perceived benefit. This discrepancy indicates attention should be devoted to (a) institutional administrative/educational supports, (b) faculty development around feedback/assessment, and (c) resident development to foster ownership of their learning and familiarity with CBE.
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 | 0.012 | 0.319 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".