Medical Student Comfort With Procedural Skills Performance Based on Elective Experience and Career Interest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Despite increased efforts, studies suggest that exposure to procedural skills in undergraduate medical training is insufficient. As medical students have low self-reported competence in many skills, a significant concern is that medical students are underprepared for a clerkship. Furthermore, pre-clerkship electives selected based on student career interests can provide students with additional skills learning opportunities. The impact of career interest and elective choice on student comfort with procedural skills is unclear. This study examines the relationship between student procedural skills comfort, career interest, and elective choices. Materials and methods An evidence-based questionnaire was synthesized following a literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Surveys were completed by second-year medical students. A Likert scale was used to evaluate students' exposure, comfort, and motivation to learn common procedural skills. Descriptive, Pearson's chi-square and Spearman's rho correlation coefficient analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between career interests, elective exposure, and procedural skills. Results Medical students (>60%) reported poor comfort levels for most skills, despite >80% of students displaying high motivation to learn. Elective choice impacted student comfort levels as students who completed electives in anesthesiology were more comfortable with performing intubation (23% vs 10%, p = 0.026) and IV insertion (38% vs 13%, p = 0.002). Those with surgical career interests were less comfortable performing Foley catheter insertion in males (7% vs 5%, p = 0.033) and in females (7% vs 5%, p = 0.008). Conclusions This study supports that medical students feel low levels of comfort with performing procedural skills despite high motivation for learning. Comfort was influenced by both career interest and elective experience. Programs aiming to increase students' comfort levels in performing procedural skills should adapt curricula toward increasing early exposure to these skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".