ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most U.S. medical schools acutely transitioned from regimented in-person learning to highly flexible virtual asynchronous learning. This transition at our medical school provided a unique opportunity to evaluate if and how students adapted their academic and personal lives in response. METHODS: Medical students in a single class that made this transition were retrospectively provided with 24-hour diaries for three periods - one shortly before the transition, a second early in the transition, and third several months into the transition - and asked to select the academic or personal activities done in each hour. The percentage of medical students performing each activity each hour was analyzed, as was the time spent on each activity per day, and per morning, afternoon, per evening within the day. RESULTS: Overall study time did not change in either virtual period but shifted significantly to the morning (6 AM to 12 PM). Time spent studying in groups fell significantly during both virtual periods, concordant with a significant increase in alone study time in the early virtual period. Early in the transition to virtual learning, students replaced in-person didactics with online faculty lectures; several months later in virtual learning, they had replaced online faculty lectures with commercial products. There was no significant change in time spent on specific personal activities. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with extensive constraints imposed by the heavy cognitive load of a medical school curriculum, students did not significantly change their overall study time and any self-care-related activities in the transition to virtual learning. However, transitioning to virtual learning allowed our students to adapt their study strategies, i.e. reducing group study time and increasing lone studying time. Furthermore, students shifted studying time to the morning to optimize the management of the cognitive task-load they faced.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been a source of disruption, changing the face of medical education. In response to infection control measures at the University of California, San Diego, the hybrid in-person and recorded preclerkship curriculum was converted to a completely virtual format. The impact of this exclusive virtual teaching platform on the quality of trainee education is unknown. Objective: To determine the efficacy of a virtual course, relative to traditional hybrid in-person and recorded teaching, and to assess the impact of supplementary educational material on knowledge acquisition. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was performed to assess an introductory course, held mostly in person in 2019 versus completely virtual in 2020, for first-year medical students and second-year pharmacy students at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine and Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Results: The midterm and final examination scores were similar for the hybrid and virtual courses. There was no association between the hours of recorded lectures watched and final examination scores for either course. In the 2019 in-person and recorded course, students who demonstrated consistent on-time use of practice quizzes scored statistically higher on the final examination (P = 0.0066). In the 2020 virtual course, students who downloaded quizzes regularly had statistically higher scores on the midterm examination (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The similar examination scores for the hybrid in-person and recorded and exclusively virtual courses suggest that the short-term knowledge acquired was equivalent, independent of the modality with which the content was delivered. Consistent on-time use of practice quizzes was associated with higher examination scores. Future studies are needed to assess the difference between a completely in-person versus virtual curriculum.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. RESULTS: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.