Professional identity formation within longitudinal integrated clerkships: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although the uptake of Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LICs) is increasing worldwide, and there are documented benefits to participation, there is a lack of conceptual evidence regarding how LICs exert many of their benefits, including their influence on the recruitment and retention of practitioners to underserved areas or specialties. Whilst career choice and professional identity development have been previously connected within medicine, what is known about the ways in which LICs influence identity remains unclear. A scoping review was conducted to explore current knowledge and map directions for future research. METHOD: In 2020, the authors searched nine bibliographic databases for articles discussing identity within the context of LICs using a systematic search strategy. Two reviewers independently screened all articles against eligibility criteria and charted the data. Eligible articles were analysed by quantitative and qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: 849 articles were identified following an extensive search. 131 articles were selected for full-text review, with 27 eligible for inclusion. Over half of all articles originated from the United States or Canada, and research most frequently explored identity development from sociocultural orientations. Qualitatively, four themes were identified: (a) The importance of contextual continuities; (b) Symbiotic relationship of responsibility and identity development; (c) Becoming a competent carer; and (d) Influence of LICs on career identity. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review adds weight to the supposition that participation in LICs facilitates identity development, namely through contextual continuities and the responsibility students assume as they become co-providers of patient care. There are suggestions that LICs encourage the development of an 'ethic of caring'. As little research compares comprehensive LICs with other clerkship models, it remains difficult to say to what degree identity formation is facilitated above and beyond other models. Future comparative research, and research exploring identity formation from diverse theoretical perspectives would add depth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".