Canadian medical student perceptions of the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical student investment in resource stewardship (RS) is essential as resource overuse continues among physicians, but it is unclear whether this is influenced by hidden curriculum. This study investigated medical student perceptions of Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC). Methods: Canadian Medical students completed a bilingual questionnaire. Chi-square and student's T-tests were used to analyze Likert responses capturing student attitudes toward questions grouped by theme, including the importance of the CWC campaign, the amount of CWC represented in undergraduate medical curriculum, the application of CWC recommendations in medicine, and the barriers which exist to student advocacy for CWC in practice. Results: = 2,720/3,171; 85.8%) endorsed the importance of CWC, few students felt that their institution had sufficiently integrated CWC into pre-clerkship (47.0%) and clerkship (63.5%) curricula. Overall, 61.4% of students felt that it is reasonable to expect physicians to apply CWC recommendations given the workplace culture in medicine. Only 35.1% students were comfortable addressing resource misuse with their preceptor. The most common barriers included the assumption that their preceptor was more knowledgeable (86.4%), concern over evaluations (66.0%), and concern for their reputation (31.2%). Conclusions: Canadian medical students recognize the importance of CWC. However, many trainees feel that the workplace culture in medicine does not support the application of CWC recommendations. A power imbalance exists that prevents students from advocating for RS in practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".