Intégration des patients enseignants dans les études de médecine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In a social context supportive of patient engagement throughout society, many scientific claims are in favour of developing patient engagement in medical education. However, few studies have objectively investigated current practices and the obstacles to patient engagement from the point of view of medical educators. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: This study aimed at investigating medical educators' practices regarding patient engagement, and their expectations and self reported obstacles. METHOD: This study's design was observational, cross-sectional and monocentered. Survey responses were queried by email from 565 academic medical educators at the Rennes Medical School in 2019. Patient engagement was ranked in four levels based on Pomey's theoretical frame, ranging from use of health data to cocreation of training programs. RESULTS: The response rate was 23% (N = 128). The educator's profiles were diverse in age, specialty and status. 35 declared involving patients in their teachings, 4 of them declared cocreating courses with the patients. The remaining 93 educators did not involve patients in their course and reported some obstacles. The main obstacles were: never thought about it (60%), difficulties selecting the patient (36%) and lack of time (21%). The patient's role as a teacher was not disregarded. CONCLUSIONS: This first study about academic educator's perspectives toward patient engagement in medical training identified obstacles and pathways to promote patient engagement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".