Canadian family medicine residency program survey of physical activity curriculum content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is an important contributor to the health of Canadians. However, the extent that PA is included in family medicine residents' education is largely unknown. This study surveyed curriculum experts in Canadian family medicine residency programs to understand what residents learn about PA and to what extent this varies across programs. Methods: Seventeen family medicine residency program websites were reviewed for information pertaining to their PA curriculum. Additionally, curriculum experts were asked to complete a survey to better understand the extent that PA curriculum is included in their programs. Results: Most (82.4%) of the eligible programs responded to the survey; of which, the majority (92.9%) indicated that residents learn that physical inactivity is a risk factor for chronic conditions, to incorporate into patient care plans, and to recommended PA as prevention for chronic diseases. However, half (50.0%) of the programs stated that they believe residents will be sufficiently prepared to incorporate PA in the care they provide patients, less than half (42.9%) teach PA guidelines, and few (21.4%) teach about PA referral to an allied health care provider or community program. Conclusions: The instruction about PA that family physicians receive in Canadian residency programs varied depending on the program. A standard to ensure residents are sufficiently and competently prepared to recommend and advise physical activity as treatment and prevention is needed. Additional studies are needed to understand the opinions and teachings of preceptors who may have an influence over the residency training of Canadian family physicians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".