Longitudinal Study of Family Medicine Residents’ Clinical Teaching After Participation in the Residents-as-Teachers Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Residents-as-teachers (RAT) programs provide opportunities for residents to gain teaching skills. Published studies have assessed RAT programs largely at a single point in time rather than longitudinally. To address this gap, we examined (a) longitudinal trends in RAT participants' interest, comfort, confidence, skill, and familiarity with aspects of clinical teaching; and (b) subsequent involvement in clinical teaching. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal survey of one cohort of family medicine residents (N=56) who participated in the RAT program during residency. We collected data before and after the RAT program and at one and three years into practice (2016-2020). We measured outcomes including interest, comfort, confidence, skill, familiarity with aspects of clinical teaching and involvement in clinical teaching. We performed longitudinal analysis using repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Response rates at four data collections were 63% (n=35), 66% (n=37), 55% (n=31), and 34% (n=19), respectively. We observed consistent trends in interest, comfort, confidence, skill, and familiarity with aspects of clinical teaching; mean scores increased from before to after the RAT program and subsequently decreased in the early years in practice. At 1 and 3 years in practice, 71% and 74% of respondents, respectively, reported being involved in teaching, primarily teaching medical students. CONCLUSIONS: The RAT program appears to be a positive contributing influence on family medicine graduates' perceived preparedness to teach and their involvement in teaching after graduation from residency. A relatively high proportion of residents are involved in teaching in the early years 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.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it