Academic Half-Day Education Experience in Post-graduate Medical Training: A Scoping Review of Characteristics and Learner Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The academic half-day (AHD) has grown in popularity for medical education because it intends to provide learners with uninterrupted, immersive learning time that may promote participant attendance, engagement, and knowledge. Little is known about the extent of use, forms, or effectiveness of AHD in Post-graduate medical education. This scoping review summarizes existing literature and describes the learning outcomes, according to the Kirkpatrick model of learning evaluation, of AHD experiences on Post-graduate medical trainees. Methods Authors used Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, searching electronic scientific literature databases from the years of 1977–2019 with relevant key terms and identifying 735 papers. Two independent raters completed title/abstract screening and then extracted pertinent data from papers meeting specified criteria. Results Authors identified 38 relevant papers published in English, originating from programs in US ( n = 19) and Canada ( n = 19), spanning 4 disciplines: Medicine ( n = 17, 45%), Pediatrics ( n = 10, 26%), Critical Care/Surgery ( n = 9, 24%), Radiology ( n = 2, 5%). A majority ( n = 33, 87%) described specific educational experiences; most focused on residents only ( n = 27). The educational experiences included various teaching strategies; few were didactics only ( n = 4) and most were multi-modal including simulation, case-based learning, problem-based learning, and/or self-directed online study. AHD size ranged from 5 to 364 participants (median 39). AHD length was 1.5–6 h (median 3). Required resources were inconsistently described. When evaluations of the specific educational experience were reported ( n = 35 studies), the majority of studies used weak research designs (e.g., one group, pre/post-test, n = 19); few studies used strong research designs (e.g., randomized controlled trial, n = 2). Positive effects of AHD ranged across Kirkpatrick levels 1–3 learner outcomes. Conclusions The composition and content of AHD in Post-graduate medical education vary. Few studies of AHD use stringent research designs, and none include learner outcome measures at the highest Kirkpatrick level (i.e., level 4 results/patient outcomes). A consensus definition and further high-quality research on AHD in Post-graduate medical education is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".