A Randomized Crossover Trial Evaluating the Impact of Cultural Dexterity Training on Surgical Residents’ Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Care, Skills, and Beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This trial examines the impact of the Provider Awareness and Cultural dexterity Toolkit for Surgeons (PACTS) curriculum on surgical residents' knowledge, cross-cultural care, skills, and beliefs. BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural training of providers may reduce health care outcome disparities, but its effectiveness in surgical trainees is unknown. METHODS: PACTS focuses on developing skills needed for building trust, working with patients with limited English proficiency, optimizing informed consent, and managing pain. The PACTS trial was a randomized crossover trial of 8 academic general surgery programs in the United States: The Early group ("Early") received PACTS between periods 1 and 2, while the Delayed group ("Delayed") received PACTS between periods 2 and 3. Residents were assessed preintervention and postintervention on Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Care, Self-Assessed Skills, and Beliefs. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were conducted to evaluate within-intervention and between-intervention group differences. RESULTS: Of 406 residents enrolled, 315 were exposed to the complete PACTS curriculum. Early residents' Cross-Cultural Care (79.6%-88.2%, P <0.0001), Self-Assessed Skills (74.5%--85.0%, P <0.0001), and Beliefs (89.6%-92.4%, P =0.0028) improved after PACTS; knowledge scores (71.3%-74.3%, P =0.0661) were unchanged. Delayed resident scores pre-PACTS to post-PACTS showed minimal improvements in all domains. When comparing the 2 groups in period 2, Early residents had modest improvement in all 4 assessment areas, with a statistically significant increase in Beliefs (92.4% vs 89.9%, P =0.0199). CONCLUSIONS: The PACTS curriculum is a comprehensive tool that improved surgical residents' knowledge, preparedness, skills, and beliefs, which will help with caring for diverse patient populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".