Exploring medical students’ perspectives of physician leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leadership has been recognized as an important competency in medicine. Nevertheless, leadership curricula for Canadian medical students lacks standardization and may not be informed by medical students' perspectives of physician leadership. The purpose of this study was to elicit these perspectives on physician leadership. METHODS: The present study utilized semi-structured interviews to ascertain the views of medical student participants, including students in their first, second and third years of medical school, on physician leadership. Interview questions were based on 'the 3-C model' of physician leadership, which includes three aspects of leadership, namely character, competence and commitment. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and then coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The medical students of this study provided rich examples of resident and staff physicians demonstrating effective and ineffective leadership. The participants identified the importance of character to effective physician leadership, but some participants also described a feeling of disconnect with the relevance of character at their stage of training. When discussing physician competence, medical students described the importance of both medical expertise and transferable skills. Lastly, the leadership aspect of commitment was identified as being relevant, but medical students cautioned against the potential for physician burnout. The medical student participants' suggestions for improved leadership development included increased experiences with examples of physician leadership, opportunities to engage in leadership and participation in reflection exercises. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study participants demonstrated an appreciation for three aspects of leadership; character, competence and commitment. Furthermore, they also provided recommendations for the future design of medical leadership curricula.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".