Clinical training within an Indigenous community: a qualitative description of pediatric residents’ learning experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Indigenous children and families experience inequities across health domains. Calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada have highlighted the need for medical professionals to better understand these inequities and improve the provision of culturally safe services through collaboration between Indigenous communities and medical residency programs. There are currently no published evaluations of clinical training for Canadian medical residents within Indigenous communities. The current study was conducted at an on-reserve pediatric outreach clinic (Maskwacis Pediatric Outreach Clinic; MPOC). Methods: From the perspectives of pediatric residents, the researchers explored the impacts of attending MPOC during resident training. Residents completed anonymous surveys over an 18-month period that addressed patient and caregiver encounters, the value of MPOC on resident training, significant pediatric health issues in the community, and limitations of MPOC in contributing to training. Seven residents participated in a focus group that expanded upon survey results. Results: Thirty-four surveys were completed. Responses reflected an enhanced understanding of social, environmental, and systemic contributors to health issues, and learning regarding the complexity of circumstances that Indigenous children and families face. Focus group results were organized into the impacts of MPOC on (1) residents and (2) patients, with several sub-categories. Conclusions: Findings suggest that direct clinical exposure to Indigenous child health issues is a valuable educational experience for pediatric residents. The importance of strength-based approaches to educating medical residents regarding the social determinants of health and colonial contexts of Indigenous health disparities is also identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".