Is There a Role for Pediatric Residents in Teaching Community Health Care Providers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents commonly engage in a teaching role for peers and junior trainees. The associated learning benefits for the teachers and the audience are well documented. However, the concept of ‘reverse educational distance’ (RED), in which residents teach an audience that is academically senior, has never been studied. \n\nWe explored Pediatric residents’ and community health care providers’ (cHCPs) perceptions of a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) intervention with a RED approach, whereby residents would engage as teachers for cHCPs. We explored the perceived benefits, challenges, and ways to optimize the implementation of such intervention in a Pediatric residency program. Using a descriptive qualitative design, we conducted 8 focus groups, 4 with Pediatric residents and 4 with cHCPs, which included 4 to 5 participants per focus group. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. \n\nBenefits anticipated by the residents included three themes: 1) optimizing residents’ incentive to learn; 2) focusing on the practical ‘real-world application’ of pediatric knowledge; and 3) better understanding of community practice. Benefits anticipated by cHCPs included two themes: 1) being updated on pediatric evidence-based practices; and 2) improving collaboration between cHCPs and future pediatricians. The major anticipated challenge of RED was the lack of clinical experience of the resident-teacher. A key suggestion for implementation included adequately supporting residents throughout the CPD intervention.\n\nEngaging residents as teachers for cHCPs could lead to learning benefits similar to those reported when residents teach peers and junior trainees. Some of the learning benefits for the residents may however be enhanced while others may be unique to the context of RED.\n\nOur findings can guide the development of novel CPD approaches that align with the educational mandate of medical programs, namely preparing future Pediatricians as health educators for the community and fostering inter-professional collaboration. RED is a promising educational strategy for CPD.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".