Developing a National Competency-Based Diabetes Curriculum in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Delphi Study
Open accessAbstract
Objectives In recent years there has been an increased emphasis on competency-based medical education (CBME) in Canada and internationally, as can be seen with the implementation of competency-based curriculums for postgraduate medical education (PGME) through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Currently, no Canada-wide consensus exists on educational competencies relating to diabetes in undergraduate medical education (UGME). Our aim in this study was to develop a list of competencies and objectives for UGME in diabetes using a modified Delphi method.Methods Representatives involved in the development of the diabetes curriculum at all 17 medical schools across Canada were contacted. A draft list of competencies and objectives was developed by the research team using the existing curriculums at 9 Canadian medical schools and was organized using the CanMEDS framework. A Delphi method was used, with 2 iterations in order to reach consensus.Results Twelve of 17 medical schools agreed to participate. Of the 12 surveys sent in the first round, 8 responses were received (response rate 66.7%). The revised version was then resent to the 8 respondents and 7 responses were received (response rate 87.5%). A list of 9 competencies and 62 objectives was finalized.Conclusions A competency-based consensus curriculum for diabetes education for undergraduate medical students was developed using a modified Delphi method. The final consensus syllabus will be disseminated across the country. This curriculum serves as a step in the transition to competency-based UGME and in ensuring that future medical school graduates are proficient in diabetes care.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The 70% threshold was based on previous Delphi studies used for curriculum development.
“The 70% threshold was based on previous Delphi studies used for curriculum development21–25.”
From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
The Delphi data analyses—second round section says consensus thresholds in the literature range from 60% to 80%, which encompasses 70%. The Discussion identifies earlier Delphi studies used for curriculum development. However, this paper used a 60% agreement threshold, not 70%, and does not say that a 70% threshold was based on those studies. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe approach was based on similar studies that successfully used expert opinions to create or update curricula in medicine for different subject areas, leveraging their structures to ensure the process was thorough.
“We also based our approach on similar studies that have successfully used expert opinions to create or update curricula in medicine for different subject areas, leveraging their structures to ensure our process was thorough21–25.”
From Developing a Canadian artificial intelligence medical curriculum using a Delphi study (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Shah, S., McCann, M., & Yu, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Catherine
- ORCID
- Yu, Catherine
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Diabetes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-36.e2
- ISSN
- 1499-2671 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2944046821
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Diabetes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
- Keywords
- diabetes education, competency-based medical education, undergraduate medical education, medical curriculum development, CanMEDS framework, Canadian medical schools
- MeSH terms
- Canada, Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Diabetes Mellitus, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Health Education, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
