Residents’ perceptions of an integrated longitudinal curriculum: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to explore family medicine residents’ perceptions of a newly restructured integrated longitudinal curriculum. Method: A purposeful sample of 16 family medicine residents participated in focus group interviews conducted from a grounded theory perspective to identify the characteristics of this training model that contribute to and that challenge learning. Results: Eight key themes were identified: continuity of care, relevance to family medicine, autonomy, program-focused preparation, professional development as facilitated by role modeling, patient volume, clarity of expectations for learners, and logistics. Positive learning experiences were marked by high levels of autonomy, continuity, and relevance to family medicine. Less favorable learning experiences were characterized by limited opportunities for continuity of care, limited relevance to family medicine practice and unclear expectations for the resident’s role. Family physician-led learning experiences contributed to residents’ understanding of the full scope of family medicine practice, more so than specialist-led experiences. The logistics of implementing the integrated block were challenging and negatively impacted continuity and learning. Conclusions: This study suggests that an integrated longitudinalized family medicine block training model has the potential to support the principles of a longitudinal integrated competency-based curriculum to effectively prepare residents for family medicine 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".