Evaluation of the geriatric curriculum implemented at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran, since 2017: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Recently, there has been an increase in life expectancy due to improvements in nutrition, health, and sanitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the geriatric curriculum in the field of general medicine at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Iran to improve the quality of services provided to this population in the community. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> This was a qualitative study. Six educational hospitals and ambulatory centers of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences participated in this study. Within these centers, 15 medical education faculty members and educational experts, 6 medical students, 6 elderly patients and 6 nurses working in the university related to the geriatric field were selected using purposive sampling. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion and field observations in the teaching hospital and ambulatory setting of SUMS from June 2017 to May 2018. Based on the qualitative research, the data underwent conventional content analysis and the main themes were developed from this. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Three main themes were extracted from the data: effective clinical education, geriatrics curriculum challenges and promotion strategies for geriatric medicine. Subcategories that emerged were a competent curriculum teacher, a challenging program, management of resources, promotion of the program, and the revision required in the curriculum, which were related to other concepts and described in the real-world situation of the geriatric curriculum in the university, as observed in field observations. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> This study identified three concepts as main themes that can be used to explain how to implement a geriatric curriculum in a medical university. The main contributing factor to different views of the participants was identified as the revision required to the curriculum for integrative care in a geriatric patient. This should be taken into consideration while planning any programs and decisions aimed at education of medical students on this topic. </ns4:p>
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 | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".