Cited by 13Innovations in Medical EducationChild and Adolescent HealthHealth and Medical Education

Evaluation and Comparison of a 1-Month Versus a 2-Week Community Pediatrics and Advocacy Rotation for Pediatric Residents

DeLago, Cynthia, Gracely, Edward·2007·Clinical Pediatrics

Abstract

This prospective study was conducted to assess the effects of a 4-week community pediatrics and advocacy rotation with a unique project (Curriculum A), a 2-week community pediatrics rotation with advocacy training and unique project throughout residency (Curriculum B), or no curriculum exposure on residents' attitudes, perceived competence, knowledge, and behaviors. A 27-item questionnaire was used to assess attitudes, competence, and knowledge. Examination of residents' patients' use of Early Intervention services during the 5-year period after curricula introduction assessed behaviors. Seventy percent of questionnaires distributed over several years were completed by 105 of 111 eligible residents. Residents exposed to Curriculum A or B demonstrated improved competence and knowledge but no significant increase in positive attitudes toward community pediatrics and advocacy. Residents' patients' use of Early Intervention services increased 65% during the 5-year period after curriculum introduction. No significant differences in outcome measures were observed between Curriculum A and Curriculum B.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0009922807304149

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 majority of included pediatric curricula were published after 2001 and directly referenced the inclusion of child advocacy in the requirements as part of the rationale for their creation.

    “the majority were published after and directly referenced the inclusion of child advocacy in the requirements as part of the rationale for their creation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeLago, C., & Gracely, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Corresponding author
DeLago, Cynthia
Venue
Clinical Pediatrics
Published
2007-11
Volume
46
Issue
9
Pages
821-830
ISSN
  • 0009-9228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2707
OpenAlex
W2165978842
Cited by
13
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
community paediatrics, pediatric advocacy, early intervention services, resident attitudes, perceived competence
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Community Medicine, Curriculum, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Pediatrics, Personnel Staffing and Scheduling, 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