MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392142883 · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05178-8

Distributed Medical Education (DME) in psychiatry: perspectives on facilitators, obstacles, and factors affecting psychiatrists' willingness to engage in teaching activities

2024· article· en· W4392142883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raquel da Luz Dias, Lara Hazelton, Mandy Esliger, Peggy Alexiadis Brown, Philip G. Tibbo, Nachiketa Sinha, Anthony Njoku, Satyanarayana Satyendra, Sanjay Siddhartha, Faisal Rahman, Hugh Maguire, Gerald Gray, Mark Bosma, Deborah Parker, Owen Connolly, Adewale Raji, Alexandra Manning, Alexa Bagnell, Reham Shalaby, Vincent I. O. Agyapong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationLogistic regressionPsychologyDescriptive statisticsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Distributed Medical Education (DME), a decentralized model focused on smaller cities and communities, has been implemented worldwide to bridge the gap in psychiatric education. Faculty engagement in teaching activities such as clinical teaching, supervision, and examinations is a crucial aspect of DME sites. Implementing or expanding DME sites requires careful consideration to identify enablers that contribute to success and barriers that need to be addressed. This study aims to examine enablers, barriers, and factors influencing psychiatrists' willingness to start or continue participating in teaching activities within Dalhousie University's Faculty of Medicine DME sites in two provinces in Atlantic Canada. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study was conducted as part of an environmental scan of Dalhousie Faculty of Medicine's DME programs in Nova Scotia (NS) and New Brunswick (NB), Canada. In February 2023, psychiatrists from seven administrative health zones in these provinces anonymously participated in an online survey. The survey, created with OPINIO, collected data on sociodemographic factors, practice-related characteristics, medical education, and barriers to teaching activities. Five key outcomes were assessed, which included psychiatrists' willingness to engage in (i) clinical training and supervision, (ii) lectures or skills-based teaching, (iii) skills-based examinations, (iv) training and supervision of Canadian-trained psychiatrists, and (v) training and supervision of internationally trained psychiatrists. The study employed various statistical analyses, including descriptive analysis, chi-square tests, and logistic regression, to identify potential predictors associated with each outcome variable. RESULTS: The study involved 60 psychiatrists, primarily male (69%), practicing in NS (53.3%), with international medical education (69%), mainly working in outpatient services (41%). Notably, 60.3% lacked formal medical education training, yet they did not perceive the lack of training as a significant barrier, but lack of protected time as the main one. Despite this, there was a strong willingness to engage in teaching activities, with an average positive response rate of 81.98%. The lack of protected time for teaching/training was a major barrier reported by study participants. Availability to take the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Competency by Design training was the main factor associated with psychiatrists' willingness to participate in the five teaching activities investigated in this study: willingness to participate in clinical training and supervision of psychiatry residents (p = .01); provision of lectures or skills-based teaching for psychiatry residents (p < .01); skills-based examinations of psychiatry residents (p < .001); training/supervision of Canadian-trained psychiatrists (p < .01); and training and supervision of internationally trained psychiatrists (p < .01). CONCLUSION: The study reveals a nuanced picture regarding psychiatrists' engagement in teaching activities at DME sites. Despite a significant association between interest in formal medical education training and willingness to participate in teaching activities, clinicians do not consider the lack of formal training as a barrier. Addressing this complexity requires thoughtful strategies, potentially involving resource allocation, policy modifications, and adjustments to incentive structures by relevant institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207