MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108082629 · doi:10.7759/cureus.11680

Pre-departure and Post-elective Requirements for Global Health Electives: Survey of Canadian Royal College Emergency Medicine Programs

2020· article· en· W3108082629 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jodie Pritchard, Susan A. Bartels, Amanda Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingMedicineFeelingResidency trainingMedical educationCurriculumFamily medicineContinuing educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Global Health (GH) electives offer unique learning opportunities; however, risks to trainees and host populations should be minimized through pre-departure training and post-elective debriefing. In a 2016 study, only three Canadian residency programs mandated such training, although specific data on Emergency Medicine (EM) programs is lacking. This study aimed to identify GH elective requirements and perceived training gaps among EM programs. METHODS: We conducted two email surveys (one each for EM program directors [PDs] and residents) regarding training requirements and perceived gaps for GH electives. We also contacted university postgraduate medical education (PGME) and GH offices, via their online publicized emails, to assess university-wide requirements and resources. RESULTS: Nine PDs responded, with 78% reporting having residents participate in GH electives. Many PDs (67%) believed residents were moderately prepared for GH electives, while 33% felt they were unprepared to some degree. Forty seven out of an estimated 380 EM residents responded with 35% having completed a GH elective during residency. Of those, only one (6%) reported feeling very prepared, and 43% believed there was a need to improve trainings. Uncertainty around training requirements was reported, and residents identified challenges faced on electives, as well as priority topics for training. Responses from PGME and GH offices indicated that pre-departure training and post-elective debriefing were required or available at more universities than was indicated by the PD and resident respondents. However university requirements varied widely, with some exclusively requiring basic travel information and Health and Safety checklists or modules. The disparate responses indicate that residents and PDs may either be unaware of university requirements or not utilize available training resources for GH electives. CONCLUSIONS: Although Canadian EM residents participate in GH electives, the majority of training programs do not require pre-departure training or post-elective debriefing. PDs and residents report varying levels of preparedness, and residents acknowledge a variety of challenges during GH electives. This information can be used to inform pre-departure training and post-elective debriefing and encourage EM residents to access available university-wide training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.305 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207