MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120848429 · doi:10.22454/fammed.2021.453158

Implementing Competency-Based Medical Education in Family Medicine: A Narrative Review of Current Trends in Assessment

2021· review· en· W3120848429 on OpenAlex
Natalia Danilovich, Simon Kitto, David W. Price, Craig Campbell, Amanda Hodgson, Paul Hendry

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentCompetence (human resources)Thematic analysisMedical educationNarrative reviewInclusion (mineral)NarrativeMedicineHealth carePsychologyQualitative researchPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The implementation of effective competency-based medical education (CBME) relies on building a coherent and integrated system of assessment across the continuum of training to practice. As such, the developmental progression of competencies must be assessed at all stages of the learning process, including continuing professional development (CPD). Yet, much of the recent discussion revolves mostly around residency programs. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the findings of studies spanning the last 2 decades that examined competency-based assessment methods used in family medicine residency and CPD, and to identify gaps in their current practices. METHODS: We adopted a modified form of narrative review and searched five online databases and the gray literature for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Data analysis involved mixed methods including quantitative frequency analysis and qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Fourteen were formal evaluation studies that focused on the outcome and impact evaluation of assessment methods. Articles that focused on formative assessment were prevalent. The most common levels of educational outcomes were performance and competence. There were few studies on CBME assessment among practicing family physicians. Thematic analysis of the literature identified several challenges the family medicine educational community faces with CBME assessment. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that those involved in health education systematically evaluate and publish their CBME activities, including assessment-related content and evaluations. The highlighted themes may offer insights into ways in which current CBME assessment practices might be improved to align with efforts to improve health care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.428 · 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