Examining the Educational Value of Student-Run Clinics for Health Care Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Student-run clinics (SRCs) are increasingly recognized as an educational experience in many health professions' curricula. Several benefits have been documented, including students with SRC experience using patient-centered approaches to care, showing interest in working with marginalized populations, and more fully appreciating the care provided by interprofessional teams. Yet, few studies have explored student experiences within SRCs or examined how these experiences affect and shape these documented attitudes. This study explored the experiences of students at an SRC and the effect of these experiences on their learnings. METHOD: From November 2016 to July 2017, 23 students in the Community Health Initiative by University Students SRC at the University of British Columbia participated in 2 focus group interviews: the first after their first clinic day and the second on their final clinic day. Open- and closed-ended questions were used to explore participants' learnings from the SRC. Using a grounded theory approach, the authors iteratively analyzed the transcribed interviews, adjusting questions for subsequent focus groups as new themes evolved. Three investigators each separately coded the data; the full team then collectively consolidated the themes and developed explanatory models for each theme. RESULTS: Two themes were identified from the focus group input: (1) through managing real, complex patients-in situations unlike those offered in classroom and case-based learning environments-students gained insights into the intricacies of incorporating the patient's perspective into their definition and management of the patient's problem, and (2) by working as a team instead of focusing on delineating scopes of practice, students gained a meaningful understanding of the roles of practitioners from other health professions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the unique opportunities SRCs offer health care students early in their training, enabling them to develop a richer understanding and appreciation of holistic and interprofessional approaches to patient 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".