Resident and supervisor perceptions of gaining obstetrical competency in Family Medicine: a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Canadian Family Medicine (FM) residents, upon graduation, are disinclined to provide intrapartum care. The FM resident experience with obstetrical training has not been studied in over a decade while the FM landscape has changed. This study explored the FM resident experience in working towards their obstetrical competencies as one of the chief influences on their career decision to provide intrapartum care or not. Methods: = 8) from one Ontario FM program. We coded and interpreted the transcripts for common themes. Results: FM residents working towards their intrapartum skills are influenced by the following themes: the learners' unique and individual experience and expectations; opportunities in the training environment; and learning obstetrics in the changing FM landscape. Notably, the influence of FM maternity care role models permeated all themes. Conclusion: This study offers insight into potential areas of intervention to improve the FM residency training experience in intrapartum care. Investment in FM maternity education, in the undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula, with continued support in practice, is critical to maintain comprehensive education and patient care, especially while Canada faces a maternity care crisis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".