Entrustable Professional Activities in Family Medicine Residency Training between South Korea and Abroad: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a comparative analysis of the Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) within family medicine residency training programs in South Korea, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.As medical education shifts globally toward a competency-based paradigm, EPAs have become a crucial framework for defining and assessing a resident' s ability to perform essential clinical tasks independently.While this concept is utilized in all five countries to structure residents' training, significant differences exist in their scope, philosophy, and assessment systems.South Korea has established 12 core EPAs reflecting its specific clinical environment, but currently lacks a systematic competency-based assessment methodology.By contrast, their international counterparts have more developed systems.The U.S. has recently evolved from 20 granular EPAs to 12 broader "Core Outcomes, " consequently focusing on the overall results of training.Canada integrates 35 EPAs into its CanMEDS competency framework to create a cohesive continuum from medical school through residency.The U.K. employs a functionally equivalent system of 13 "Professional Capabilities" supported by a robust workplace-based assessment system.Australia utilizes 13 EPAs assessed through a practical 4-level entrustment scale that is embedded in daily clinical practice.Key differences lie in the emphasis international programs place on broader professional roles, such as health equity, team leadership, and social accountability, and their sophisticated, integrated assessment tools.This study recommends that the Korean family medicine training system adopt a more holistic, outcome-based perspective, develop multifaceted assessment tools, and create a flexible framework to address the evolving demands of modern healthcare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".