ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2014
Exploring the Realities of Curriculum-by-Random-Opportunity: The Case of Geriatrics on the Internal Medicine Clerkship Rotation.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward 'seeing' critically: a Bayesian analysis of the impacts of a critical pedagogy.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2022Article
- Has teaching about intellectual disability healthcare in Australian medical schools improved? A 20-year comparison of curricula audits.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Geriatrics Curriculum Needs Assessment for Dermatology Residency Programs.Journal of graduate medical education · 2018Article
- Faculty and resident perspectives on ambulatory care education: A collective case study of family medicine, psychiatry, and surgery.Canadian medical education journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile major clerkship blocks may have objectives related to specialized areas such as geriatrics, gay and lesbian bisexual transgender health, and palliative care, there is concern that teaching activities may not attend sufficiently to these objectives. Rather, these objectives are assumed to be met "by random opportunity".((1)) This study explored the case of geriatric learning opportunities on internal medicine clinical teaching units, to better understand the affordances and limitations of curriculum by random opportunity.
methodsUsing audio-recordings of morning case review discussions of 13 patients > 65 years old and the Canadian geriatric core competencies for medical students, we conducted a content analysis of each case for potential geriatric and non-geriatric learning opportunities. These learning opportunities were compared with attendings' case review teaching discussions. The 13 cases contained 40 geriatric-related and 110 non-geriatric-related issues. While many of the geriatric issues (e.g., delirium, falls) were directly relevant to the presenting illness, attendings' teaching discussions focused almost exclusively on non-geriatric medical issues, such as management of diabetes and anemia, many of which were less directly relevant to the reason for presenting to hospital.
resultsThe authors found that the general medicine rotation provides opportunities to acquire geriatric competencies. However, the rare uptake of opportunities in this study suggests that, in curriculum-by-random-opportunity, presence of an opportunity does not justify the assumption that learning objectives will be met.
conclusionsMore studies are required to investigate whether these findings are transferrable to other vulnerable populations about which undergraduate students are expected to learn through curriculum by random opportunity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.