Efficacy of a 3-hour Aboriginal Health Teaching in the Medical Curriculum: Are We Changing Student Knowledge and Attitudes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is national recognition of the need to incorporate Aboriginal health issues within the medical school curricula. This study aims to evaluate changes in medical students’ knowledge and attitudes about Aboriginal health, and their preparedness to work in Aboriginal communities after attending a 3-hour Aboriginal health seminar. A cross-sectional survey was administered before and after the seminar for Year 1 and 2 medical students at the University of Western Ontario. The survey included four true or false questions and 24 questions using a seven-point Likert scale (1 – strongly disagree, 7 – strongly agree). Eighty two of 130 (64 per cent) Year 1 students and 55 of 86 (63 per cent) Year 2 students completed both questionnaires. Knowledge-based questions were answered correctly by most students before the seminar, with an increasing number of correct responses noted after the seminar (p < 0.05). Students’ perceptions about sociocultural and economic factors affecting health showed uncertainty before the seminar, but changed towards greater agreement regarding its impact on health after the seminar (p < 0.05). Students initially felt unprepared to care for Aboriginal patients before the seminar, but felt more prepared after the seminar (p < 0.05). A 3-hour seminar using both didactic and non-traditional teaching methods appears to be effective in the short term in improving knowledge, changing attitudes and reversing some of the uncertainties medical students have about practicing in Aboriginal communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".