MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186954780 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200236

Interventions to improve the well-being of medical learners in Canada: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3186954780 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stephana J. Moss, Krista Wollny, Mungunzul Amarbayan, Diane Lorenzetti, Aliya Kassam

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychological interventionPsycINFOMEDLINEMedicineMedical educationIntervention (counseling)Graduate medical educationFamily medicinePsychologyNursingAccreditation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Medical education affects learner well-being. We explored the breadth and depth of interventions to improve the well-being of medical learners in Canada. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 11, 2020, using the Arksey–O’Malley, 5-stage, scoping review method. We included interventions to improve well-being across 5 wellness domains (i.e., social, mental, physical, intellectual, occupational) for medical learners in Canada, grouped as undergraduate or graduate nonmedical (i.e., health sciences) students, undergraduate medical students or postgraduate medical students (i.e., residents). We categorized interventions as targeting the individual (learner), program (i.e., in which learners are enrolled) or system (i.e., higher education or health care) levels. Results: Of 1753 studies identified, we included 65 interventions that aimed to improve well-being in 10 202 medical learners, published from 1972 through 2020; 52 (80%) were uncontrolled trials. The median year for intervention implementation was 2010 (range 1971–2018) and the median length was 3 months (range 1 h–48 mo). Most (n = 34, 52%) interventions were implemented with undergraduate medical students. Two interventions included only undergraduate, nonmedical students; none included graduate nonmedical students. Most studies (n = 51, 78%) targeted intellectual well-being, followed by occupational (n = 32, 49%) and social (n = 17, 26%) well-being. Among 19 interventions implemented for individuals, 14 (74%) were for medical students; of the 27 program-level interventions, 17 (63%) were for resident physicians. Most (n = 58, 89%) interventions reported positive well-being outcomes. Interpretation: Many Canadian medical schools address intellectual, occupational and social well-being by targeting interventions at medical learners. Important emphasis on the mental and physical well-being of medical learners in Canada warrants further exploration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207