Motivations for and Challenges in the Development of Global Medical Curricula: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this scoping review is to understand the motivations for the creation of global medical curricula, summarize methods that have been used to create these curricula, and understand the perceived premises for the creation of these curricula. METHOD: In 2018, the authors used a comprehensive search strategy to identify papers on existing efforts to create global medical curricula published from 1998 to March 29, 2018, in the following databases: MEDLINE; MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ERIC; Scopus; African Index Medicus; and LILACS. There were no language restrictions. Two independent researchers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Demographic data were abstracted from publications and summarized. The stated purposes, methods used for the development, stated motivations, and reported challenges of curricula were coded. RESULTS: Of the 18,684 publications initially identified, 137 met inclusion criteria. The most common stated purposes for creating curricula were to define speciality-specific standards (50, 30%), to harmonize training standards (38, 23%), and to improve the quality or safety of training (31, 19%). The most common challenges were intercountry variation (including differences in health care systems, the operationalization of medical training, and sociocultural differences; 27, 20%), curricular implementation (20, 15%), and the need for a multistakeholder approach (6, 4%). Most curricula were developed by a social group (e.g., committee; 30, 45%) or Delphi or modified Delphi process (22, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: The challenges of intercountry variation, the need for a multistakeholder approach, and curricular implementation need to be considered if concerns about curricular relevance are to be addressed. These challenges undoubtedly impact the uptake of global medical curricula and can only be addressed by explicit efforts to make curricula applicable to the realities of diverse health care settings.
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 | 0.075 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".