Operationalising generalism in medical education: a narrative review of international policy and mission documents
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
INTRODUCTION: Despite moves across medical education to increase learning of generalist principles, a lack of clarity about what generalism means and how we should train doctors as 'generalists', has remained. This study explores how international, undergraduate and postgraduate, policy and educational mission documents characterise the practice and learning of generalism and how this can inform physician training. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted based on policy and mission documents identified through grey literature searches and a wider systematic review looking at empirical texts. Texts published between 1999 and present and related to 'generalism' were eligible for inclusion. Texts were coded and codes were reviewed and grouped into key themes. RESULTS: Thirty-four documents were included. Definitions vary: some described generalism as a basic skill, whilst others emphasised expertise. Factors which support learning generalism include: favourable financial outcomes; ageing populations; coordination of multidisciplinary care; demand for doctors with transferable skills; and patient expectations. Barriers to learning about generalism include: preference for specialisation; structure of undergraduate teaching and assessment; and the hidden curriculum. Solutions may include re-imagining generalists and specialists as being on a continuum as well as increasing exposure throughout medical education. DISCUSSION: Whilst generalism is consistently positioned as valuable, less clarity exists about how best to operationalise this in medical education. Fundamental ideological and structural changes within teaching curricula and assessment, are necessary to improve generalist learning and to promote sustainable practice. Medical education needs careful, considered planning to ensure workforce expertise is meeting population needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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