Medical students’ perspectives of their clinical comfort and curriculum for acute pain management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uyen Evelyn Tran,1 Janeva Kircher,2,3 Priya Jaggi,2 Hollis Lai,1 Tracey Hillier,1,4 Samina Ali3,5 1Undergraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 3Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 4Department of Radiology & Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 5Women and Children’s Health Research Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Objectives: Acute pain is a common presenting complaint in health care. Yet, undertreatment of pain remains a prevailing issue that often results in poor short- and long-term patient outcomes. To address this problem, initiatives to improve teaching on pain management need to begin in medical school. In this study, we aimed to describe medical students’ perspectives of their curriculum, comfort levels, and most effective pain teaching modalities. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to medical students at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Canada) from late May to early July 2015. Data were collected from pre-clerkship (year 1 and 2) and clerkship (year 3 and 4) medical students for demographic characteristics, knowledge, comfort, and attitudes regarding acute pain management. Results: A total of 124/670 (19.6%) surveys were returned. Students recalled a median of 2 (interquartile range [IQR]=4), 5 (IQR=3.75), 4 (IQR=8), and 3 (IQR=3.75) hours of formal pain education from first to forth year, respectively. Clerkship students were more comfortable than pre-clerks with treating adult pain (52.1% of pre-clerks “uncomfortable” versus 22.9% of clerks, p<0.001), and overall, the majority of students were uncomfortable with managing pediatric pain (87.6% [64/73] pre-clerks and 75.0% [36/48] clerks were “uncomfortable”). For delivery of pain-related education, the majority of pre-clerks reported lectures as most effective (51.7%), whereas clerks chose bedside instruction (43.7%) and small group sessions (23.9%). Notably, 54.2%, 39.6%, and 56.2% of clerks reported incorrect doses of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and morphine, respectively, for adults. For children, 54.2%, 54.2%, and 78.7% of clerks reported incorrect doses for these same medications. Conclusion: Medical students recall few hours of training in pain management and report discomfort in treating and assessing both adult and (more so) pediatric pain. Strategies are needed to improve education for future physicians regarding pain management. Keywords: analgesia, undergraduate, curriculum, medical education, survey
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".