Pros and Cons: Global Adoption of Competency-Based Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Competency-based medical education (CBME) aims for trainees to develop clinical competencies for effective medical practice rather than focus on knowledge and skill acquisition. Its adoption has grown significantly since the 1970s and has had a global impact on medical education, albeit with varied implementation by country.1,2 CBME was first implemented in developed countries. In the United States, CBME was adopted widely in the early 2000s for residency programs after the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education introduced competency-based education. In the United Kingdom, CBME was included in the General Medical Council’s 2017 postgraduate medical education framework. CBME was implemented for basic and advanced training in Australia by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in 2016 and is required for specialty training programs in most medical schools in Canada by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. Holland, Denmark, and Switzerland use CBME in medical education in Europe.2 Developing countries have also recognized the benefits of CBME and are implementing it, with India introducing CBME for undergraduate medical education in 2019 and South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya adopting it to address health care worker shortages. Although limited resources and infrastructure hinder its implementation in poorer countries, CBME is gaining popularity in underdeveloped nations.2,3 CBME offers several advantages, such as providing clear and specific learning outcomes for essential competencies in clinical practice and enabling personalized learning at one’s own pace. CBME’s focus on competency-based assessment provides accurate evaluation of a student’s abilities.1 However, CBME has some limitations, such as its complexity, lack of standardization, limited empirical evidence, and potential assessment biases. Addressing these challenges is crucial to maintain CBME’s relevance and effectiveness in medical education.4 Future directions for enhancing the effectiveness of CBME include (1) incorporating advanced technology, like simulation-based training and digital learning tools; (2) emphasizing interprofessional education and collaboration; (3) developing outcome-based curricula that align with essential competencies for clinical practice; and (4) promoting internationalization to improve the recognition of medical qualifications across borders.4 CBME is an innovative approach to medical education, with significant implications for producing competent physicians who can provide high-quality care. Its potential to revolutionize medical education across the globe makes it a promising tool, despite limitations. As medical education evolves, it is essential to consider the benefits and limitations of CBME to ensure its effectiveness and relevance. Rajmohan Seetharaman, MBBS, MD Senior resident, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India; email: [email protected]; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4605-2805
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".