Global Perceptions on Social Accountability and Outcomes: A Survey of Medical Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomenon: Social accountability has become a universal component in medical education. However, medical schools have little guidance for operationalizing and applying this concept in practice. This study explored institutional practices and administrative perceptions of social accountability in medical education. Approach: An online survey was distributed to a purposeful sample of English-speaking undergraduate medical school deans and program directors/leads from 245 institutions in 14 countries. The survey comprised of 38-items related to program mission statements, admission processes, curricular content, and educational outcomes. Survey items were developed using previous literature and categorized using a context-input-process-products (CIPP) evaluation model. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to assess the inter-relationship among survey items. Reliability and internal consistency of items were evaluated using McDonald’s Omega. Findings: Results from 81 medical schools in 14 countries collected between February and June 2020 are presented. Institutional commonalities of social accountability were observed. However, our findings suggest programs focus predominately on educational inputs and processes, and not necessarily on outcomes. Findings from our EFA demonstrated excellent internal consistency and reliability. Four-factors were extracted: (1) selection and recruitment; (2) institutional mandates; (3) institutional activities; and (4) community awareness, accounting for 71% of the variance. McDonald’s Omega reliability estimates for subscales ranged from 0.80-0.87. Insights: This study identified common practices of social accountability. While many medical schools expressed an institutional commitment to social accountability, their effects on the community remain unknown and not evaluated. Overall, this paper offers programs and educators a psychometrically supported tool to aid in the operationalization and reliability of evaluating social accountability.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".