Comparison of OBGYN postgraduate curricula and assessment methods between Canada and the Netherlands: an auto-ethnographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although the Dutch and the Canadian postgraduate Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) medical education systems are similar in their foundations [programmatic assessment, competency based, involving CanMED roles and EPAs (entrustable professional activities)] and comparable in healthcare outcome, their program structures and assessment methods considerably differ. Materials and methods: We compared both countries' postgraduate educational blueprints and used an auto-ethnographic method to gain insight in the effects of training program structure and assessment methods on how trainees work. The research questions for this study are as follows: what are the differences in program structure and assessment program in Obstetrics and Gynecology postgraduate medical education in the Netherlands and Canada? And how does this impact the advancement to higher competency for the postgraduate trainee? Results: We found four main differences. The first two differences are the duration of training and the number of EPAs defined in the curricula. However, the most significant difference is the way EPAs are entrusted. In Canada, supervision is given regardless of EPA competence, whereas in the Netherlands, being competent means being entrusted, resulting in meaningful and practical independence in the workplace. Another difference is that Canadian OBGYN trainees have to pass a summative written and oral exit examination. This difference in the assessment program is largely explained by cultural and legal aspects of postgraduate training, leading to differences in licensing practice. Discussion: Despite the fact that programmatic assessment is the foundation for assessment in medical education in both Canada and the Netherlands, the significance of entrustment differs. Trainees struggle to differentiate between formative and summative assessments. The trainees experience both formative and summative forms of assessment as a judgement of their competence and progress. Based on this auto-ethnographic study, the potential for further harmonization of the OBGYN PGME in Canada and the Netherlands remains limited.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".