Engaging medical students and residents in nephrology education: an updated scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is global recognition that interest in nephrology among pediatric and adult trainees is waning, while the burden of kidney disease continues to wax. There is a growing need to engage trainees in nephrology education. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on nephrology education for medical students and residents published in the last six years, collate the findings, and extract major themes in order to better define the gaps in this field. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on four major academic search engines including MEDLINE (OvidSP), ERIC, EMBASE and Web of Science until October 22, 2020, retrieving a total of 2,694 studies. Forty studies published after September 2014 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies were analyzed based on study focus, type of study design, and outcomes. RESULTS: The studies fell into three main areas of focus: (a) factors that influence interest in nephrology careers (b) current gaps in nephrology knowledge and (c) innovative educational strategies. Barriers to engaging learners in nephrology include a lack of exposure, lack of mentorship, and perceived complexity of nephrology. Baseline awareness is deficient in the management of chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury. Applying active learning strategies may reduce the perceived barriers to understanding nephrology. CONCLUSION: The importance of engaging the future nephrology workforce is well-recognized. Nephrologist educators should focus their efforts in studying curriculum interventions and their impact not only on learner satisfaction, but also future behavior, career choices, and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".