Impact of a 1‐day urodynamic course on knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of urology residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: No evidence-informed educational curriculum is available for designing urodynamics (UDS) courses. We evaluated the learning outcomes of a short-lasting urodynamic course for urology residents. METHODS: Urology residents of postgraduate years 4 and 5 (n = 13 and n = 1316, respectively) attended a 1-day urodynamic course. Learning objectives included patient preparation, indication and technique, terminology, trace interpretation, and impact on patient management. Instructional methods consisted of short lectures (3 h) and case-based discussions (7.5 h). Learners' reactions, modifications of perceptions and attitudes, and acquisition of knowledge and skills were assessed by three written tests with a single group, pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2 design. Tests were conducted precourse, 1 week after, and 4 months after the course. RESULTS: All participants felt more confident in several urodynamic competencies after the course, including patient preparation, urodynamic indication and technique, terminology, trace interpretation, and impact for patient management. These perceptions remained unchanged after 4 months. Most became stricter in the indication of UDS, including 20 (87.0%) at posttest 1 and 8 (66.7%) at posttest 2. The mean number of correct answers in the knowledge evaluation was 52.2% versus 61.4% versus 56.7%, respectively at pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2; p = 0.535). All participants rated the course as very useful or useful in both posttest evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that a 1-day urodynamic course can promote lasting improvements in self-reported perceptions, attitudes, and urodynamic-related competencies of urology residents. Further studies using evidence-informed educational principles are needed to determine the effect of specific educational interventions on urodynamic competencies in different contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".