Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Global Medical Student Partnership program in undergraduate medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Global Medical Student Partnership (GMSP) is a medical student-led international initiative to promote accessible global health learning. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the GMSP program in meeting its learning objectives. METHODS: Canadian and international medical student pairs met online monthly (January-May 2018) to discuss global health-related medical cases. Students then reviewed cases with local GMSP peers and faculty experts. A mixed-methods study was performed to evaluate whether the objectives of the program had been achieved. 26 of 32 (81.3%) students completed a questionnaire, and 13 (40.6%) also participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze students' perspectives on skill development through GMSP. RESULTS: GMSP students agreed or strongly agreed that international collaboration and communication skills were more important to them following program participation (92.3%, 92.3% respectively). Many expressed that after GMSP, they knew more about their healthcare system, practices abroad and how to solve complex health issues (92.3%, 84.6%, 61.5% respectively). Qualitative data showed GMSP improved students' communication and presentation skills, provided a foundation for international relationships, fostered appraisal of diverse health systems, and furthered students' understanding of health advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that GMSP met its original objectives by providing students with opportunities to engage in international collaborations and to further develop their skills in advocacy, communication, and health-systems research. This program may be an important addition to medical education as it makes use of technology and peer-to-peer exchange to enable global health learning.
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 | 0.037 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".