How Can We Raise Awareness of Physician’s Needs in Order to Increase Adherence to Management and Leadership Training?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the increasing complexity of medical education and practice, the training of healthcare professionals for leadership and management roles and responsibilities has become increasingly important. But gaps in physician leadership and management skills have been identified across a broad range of organizational and geographic settings. Many clinicians are inadequately prepared to meet their day-to-day clinical leadership responsibilities. Simultaneously, physicians' leadership and management skills play a central role and yield superior outcomes for patients and health care delivery organizations. Currently, there is a tremendous variability in the amount of time, structure and resources dedicated to leadership/management training for physicians. Physicians who have completed such trainings seem to be pleased with the outcome. However, only a limited number of physicians enroll in these types of trainings. Several reasons can explain this fact, but it seems crucial to investigate what could increase the involvement of medical leaders and managers in these training programs. This paper offers a framework for addressing the barriers to training commitment and for designing initial training interventions for physicians. This framework is rooted in two well-known theoretical models used in social sciences. It aims to promote self-assessed knowledge and expertise amongst physicians about to embrace leader/manager careers. By developing the ability to explore and be curious about one's own experience and actions, physicians may suddenly open up the possibilities of purposeful learning. The process we describe in this paper may be an essential step in fostering the involvement of physicians in leadership and management training processes. And this is essential to contribute to the advancement of medical discipline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".