“I wish I had known what I was getting into”: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of Canadians who study medicine abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background An increasing number of Canadians are choosing to study medicine abroad (CSA); however, many CSA are not fully informed of the challenges that exist in returning to Canada to practice and relatively little information is known on the topic. This study explores CSA experiences in choosing to study abroad and their attempts to navigate a return to Canada to practice medicine. Methods We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with CSA who were attending medical school abroad, waiting to obtain or in a post-graduate residency program, or practicing in Canada. We asked participants about their decision to study medicine abroad and choice of school, medical school experiences, activities they engaged in to increase their likelihood of returning to Canada, perceived barriers and facilitators, and alternative plans if they were unable to return to Canada to practice. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Results Fourteen CSA participated in an interview. Expedited timelines (i.e., direct entry from high school) and a lack of competitiveness for medical school in Canada were the main justifications for CSAs’ decision to study abroad and a number of key factors (e.g., location, reputation) influenced their choice of school. Participants reported not fully anticipating the challenges associated with obtaining residency in Canada. CSA relied upon a variety of informal and formal supports and employed numerous methods to increase their likelihood of returning to Canada. Conclusions Studying medicine abroad remains a popular choice for Canadians; however, many trainees are unaware of the challenges associated with returning to Canada to practice. More information on this process as well as the quality of these medical schools is needed for Canadians considering this option.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".