Community Partners’ Experiences Teaching Undergraduate Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores community partners’ experiences of teaching undergraduate medical students. In collaboration with university faculty, community partners affiliated with a local non-profit organization drew from their own lived experience and expertise to teach students about determinants of health such as food security and low income. While feedback about educational sessions is often sought from students, this research addresses an important gap by seeking to better understand the experiences of community partners teaching health profession students. Semi-structured interviews with community partners took place to explore their perceived role in the educational session, their impressions of the overall session, and their reflections about sharing their personal experiences with medical students. Five community partners completed interviews. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated community partners interpreted their roles in teaching about determinants of health to medical students were valuable in influencing future physician practice and rewarding on a personal level. The power dynamics of individuals with lived experience of food insecurity and/or low income engaging with medical students as “experts” rather than “patients,” and the importance of being viewed by students and health care professionals as multi-faceted and intersectional people, were also important emergent themes. With connections to the literature, broader implications regarding community partner involvement in teaching health professions students are discussed including logistical and ethical considerations (such as provision of honorarium, supports before/during/after the session), diversity of learners, and distribution of power between university faculty and community collaborators. This research concludes that with thoughtful and deliberate planning, supports, and dialogue, community partner involvement in teaching can be a meaningful pedagogical approach to amplify the voices and expertise of community partners and, in doing so, can work towards informing the practice of future health care providers to address the priority health needs identified by these communities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".