Needs assessment of ophthalmology education for primary care physicians in training: comparison with the International Council of Ophthalmology recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toby YB Chan1, Amandeep S Rai2, Edwin Lee2, Jordan T Glicksman3, Cindy ML Hutnik11Ivey Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, 2Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, 3Department of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CanadaBackground: This cross-sectional survey assessed the adequacy of ophthalmology teaching in undergraduate medical education and evaluated the comfort level of family medicine residents in diagnosing and managing common ophthalmic conditions.Methods: Postgraduate year 1 and 2 family medicine residents at the University of Western Ontario were recruited for this study. The main outcome measures were hours of classroom and clinic-based instruction on ophthalmology during undergraduate medical education, and the comfort level in ophthalmic clinical skills and managing various ophthalmic conditions.Results: In total, 54 (33.3%) of 162 family medicine residents responded to the survey. Residents reported an average of 27.1 ± 35.1 hours and 39.8 ± 47.1 hours of classroom and clinical ophthalmology instruction, respectively. However, most residents (80%) responded as feeling only "somewhat comfortable" or "not at all comfortable" in assessing and managing common ophthalmic conditions, including ocular emergencies, such as acute angle closure glaucoma and ocular chemical burn. A positive correlation was seen between overall comfort level and hours of classroom instruction (P < 0.05).Conclusion: The number of hours of ophthalmology training received by family medicine residents during medical school meets the International Council of Ophthalmology Task Force recommendations. However, family medicine residents appear to be uncomfortable in handling treatable but potentially sight-threatening ocular conditions. Standardizing the undergraduate medical education ophthalmology curriculum and increasing hours of ophthalmology training during postgraduate family medicine residency may be useful in bridging this gap in knowledge.Keywords: medical education, ophthalmology, needs assessment, primary care
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 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".