Back

Factors that affected the qualification of standardized residency training of internal medicine: a prospective longitudinal study

Sun, Y.; Xu, J.; Hu, L.; Qi, J.

2022-02-17 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2022.02.15.480480 bioRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionSince the standardized residency training (SRT) was launched in 2014, there were very few data on evaluation of the factors that could influence the residents competency in China. MethodsAll residents who started their SRT programme from September 2015 to September 2018 were enrolled in this study. During the following years, they finished the programme and took examinations. The demographic information and exam scores of each subject were collected and analyzed. ResultsWe found that the qualification rates of SRT programme differed significantly annually. Age, gender, the highest medical education degree, residents from different places, training duration and years of medical school study were also different significantly year by year. According to the scores of examinations, residents were divided into two groups: the qualified group and the non-qualified group. Age, the highest medical education degree, residents from different places, training duration, years of medical school study and prior medical work experience differed significantly between the two groups. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed the residents from different places and the training duration were factors that affected the qualification rate of SRT programme independently (P = 0.000 and 0.005, respectively). DiscussionThe "homogeneity" of SRT had been achieved regardless of the individual discrepancy, while the resident from different places and the training duration were obstacles we need to overcome further. Therefore, we should further advance the process of the transition from "Unit Persons" to "Society Persons". And extending training duration will facilitate their qualification and be benefit to improve their competency.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.