Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education-Policies and Training at US Osteopathic Medical Schools: Descriptive Cross-Sectional Survey.
Interest has recently increased in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), a subset of artificial intelligence that can create new content. Although the publicly available GenAI tools are not specifically trained in the medical domain, they have demonstrated proficiency in a wide range of medical assessments. The future integration of GenAI in medicine remains unknown. However, the rapid availability of GenAI with a chat interface and the potential risks and benefits are the focus of great interest. As with any significant medical advancement or change, medical schools must adapt their curricula to equip students with the skills necessary to become successful physicians. Furthermore, medical schools must ensure that faculty members have the skills to harness these new opportunities to increase their effectiveness as educators. How medical schools currently fulfill their responsibilities is unclear. Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (COMs) in the United States currently train a significant proportion of the total number of medical students. These COMs are in academic settings ranging from large public research universities to small private institutions. Therefore, studying COMs will offer a representative sample of the current GenAI integration in medical education.
This study aims to describe the policies and training regarding the specific aspect of GenAI in US COMs, targeting students, faculty, and administrators.
Web-based surveys were sent to deans and Student Government Association (SGA) presidents of the main campuses of fully accredited US COMs. The dean survey included questions regarding current and planned policies and training related to GenAI for students, faculty, and administrators. The SGA president survey included only those questions related to current student policies and training.
Responses were received from 81% (26/32) of COMs surveyed. This included 47% (15/32) of the deans and 50% (16/32) of the SGA presidents (with 5 COMs represented by both the deans and the SGA presidents). Most COMs did not have a policy on the student use of GenAI, as reported by the dean (14/15, 93%) and the SGA president (14/16, 88%). Of the COMs with no policy, 79% (11/14) had no formal plans for policy development. Only 1 COM had training for students, which focused entirely on the ethics of using GenAI. Most COMs had no formal plans to provide mandatory (11/14, 79%) or elective (11/15, 73%) training. No COM had GenAI policies for faculty or administrators. Eighty percent had no formal plans for policy development. Furthermore, 33.3% (5/15) of COMs had faculty or administrator GenAI training. Except for examination question development, there was no training to increase faculty or administrator capabilities and efficiency or to decrease their workload.
The survey revealed that most COMs lack GenAI policies and training for students, faculty, and administrators. The few institutions with policies or training were extremely limited in scope. Most institutions without current training or policies had no formal plans for development. The lack of current policies and training initiatives suggests inadequate preparedness for integrating GenAI into the medical school environment, therefore, relegating the responsibility for ethical guidance and training to the individual COM member.
Ichikawa T
，Olsen E
，Vinod A
，Glenn N
，Hanna K
，Lund GC
，Pierce-Talsma S
... -
《-》
Effectiveness of interventions for improving educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.
People with disabilities are consistently falling behind in educational outcomes compared to their peers without disabilities, whether measured in terms of school enrolment, school completion, mean years of schooling, or literacy levels. These inequalities in education contribute to people with disabilities being less likely to achieve employment, or earn as much if they are employed, as people without disabilities. Evidence suggests that the gap in educational attainment for people with and without disabilities is greatest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Exclusion of people with disabilities from mainstream education, and low rates of participation in education of any kind, are important issues for global equity. Interventions which might have a positive impact include those that improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities, whether delivered in specialist or inclusive education settings. Such interventions involve a wide range of initiatives, from those focused on the individual level - such as teaching assistance to make mainstream classes more accessible to children with specific learning needs - to those which address policy or advocacy.
The objectives of this review were to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities in LMICs? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear to be most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to the improvement of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? (6) Is there evidence of cumulative effects of interventions?
The search for studies followed two steps. Firstly, we conducted an electronic search of databases and sector-specific websites. Then, after initial screening, we examined the reference lists of all identified reviews and screened the cited studies for inclusion. We also conducted a forward search and an ancestral search. No restrictions in terms of date or format were placed on the search, but only English-language publications were eligible for inclusion.
In our review, we included studies on the basis that they were able to detect intervention impact. Descriptive studies of various designs and methodologies were not included. We also excluded any study with a sample size of fewer than five participants. We included studies which examined the impact of interventions for people with disabilities living in LMICs. There were no restrictions on comparators/comparison groups in included studies. However, to be eligible for inclusion, a study needed to have both an eligible intervention and an eligible outcome. Any duration of follow-up was eligible for inclusion.
We used EppiReviewer for bibliographic management, screening, coding, and data synthesis. Eligibility was assessed using a predesigned form based on the inclusion criteria developed by the authors. We piloted all coding sheets with at least five studies before use. The form allowed for coding of multiple intervention domains and multiple outcomes domains. The entire screening process was reported using a PRISMA flow chart. We screened all unique references from our search title and abstract, with two independent reviewers determining relevance, and repeated this process for full texts. Data was extracted from studies according to a coding sheet. Coding included: (1) extraction of basic study characteristics, (2) a narrative summary of procedures and findings (including recording of iatrogenic effects), (3) a summary of findings/results table, (4) an assessment of confidence in study findings, and (5) creation of a forest plot of effect sizes. A third data collector, a research associate, checked the results of this process. Confidence in study findings was assessed using a standardised tool. All coding categories were not mutually exclusive and so multiple coding was done where an intervention covered more than one category of intervention.
Twenty-eight studies were included in this review. Most studies (n = 25) targeted children with disabilities. Only two studies directly targeted family members, and the remaining three focused on service providers. Individuals with intellectual or learning and developmental impairments were most frequently targeted by interventions (n = 17). The category of interventions most represented across studies was 'Educational attainment support', for instance, a reading comprehension intervention that combined strategy instruction (graphic organisers, visual displays, mnemonic illustrations, computer exercises, predicting, inference, text structure awareness, main idea identification, summarisation, and questioning) for children with dyslexia. The second most common category of intervention was 'Accessible learning environments', for instance, programmes which aimed to improve social skills or to reduce rates of victimisation of children with disabilities in schools. Regarding intervention effects, included studies concerned with 'Conditions for inclusion of people with disabilities in education' showed a moderately significant effect, and one study concerned with teacher knowledge showed a significant effect size. Among the 18 studies included in the analysis of intervention effects on 'Skills for learning', 12 interventions had a significant effect. When considering the effect of interventions on different outcomes, we see that the effect on literacy, cognitive skills, handwriting, and numeracy are significant. All these effects are large but are based on a low number of studies. The studies concerned with speech and school behaviour show no significant effect of intervention. Across studies, heterogeneity is high, and risk of publication bias varies but was frequently high. All but one study received an overall rating of low confidence in study findings. However, this lack of confidence across studies was largely due to the use of low-rigour study designs and was not always reflective of multiple points of weakness within a given study.
Children with disabilities fall behind in educational outcomes as the current school systems are not set up to teach children with different impairment types. There is no one 'magic bullet' intervention which can equalise health outcomes for this group. A twin-track approach is needed, which both addresses the specific needs of children with disabilities but also ensures that they are included in mainstream activities (e.g., through improving the skills of teachers and accessibility of the classroom). However, currently most interventions included in this systematic review targeted individual children with disabilities in an attempt to improve their functioning, skills, and competencies, but did not focus on mainstreaming these children into the school by system-level or school-level changes. Consequently, a focus on evaluation of interventions which target not just the individual with a disability but also their broader environment, are needed.
Hunt X
，Saran A
，White H
，Kuper H
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
