“It’s What We Can Do Right Now”: Professional Identity Formation Among Internal Medicine Residents During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a consequential moment of disruption for medical training that has far-reaching implications for professional identity formation (PIF). To date, this has not been studied. As medical education grapples with a postpandemic era, it is essential to gain insight into how the pandemic has influenced PIF to better support its positive influences and mitigate its more detrimental effects. This study examined how PIF occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic to better adapt future medical training. METHOD: Constructivist grounded theory guided the iterative data collection and analyses. The authors conducted semistructured group interviews with 24 Ontario internal medicine residents in postgraduate years (PGYs) 1 to 3 between November 2020 and July 2021. Participants were asked to reflect on their day-to-day clinical and learning experiences during the pandemic. RESULTS: Twenty-four internal medicine residents were interviewed (12 PGY-1 [50.0%], 9 PGY-2 [37.5%], and 3 PGY-3 [12.5%]). Participants described how navigating patient care and residency training through the pandemic consistently drew their attention to various system problems. How participants responded to these problems was shaped by an interplay among their personal values, their level of personal wellness or burnout, self-efficacy, institutional values, and the values of their supervisors and work community. As they were influenced by these factors, some were led toward acting on the problem(s) they identified, whereas others had a sense of resignation and deferred action. These interactions were evident in participants' experiences with communication, advocacy, and learning. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' professional identities are continuously shaped by how they perceive, reconcile, and address various challenges. As residents navigate tensions between personally held values and apparent system values, individuals in supervisory positions should be mindful of their influence as role models who empower values and practices that are recognized by participants to be important aspects of physician identity.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".