Medical Student Perspectives on LGBTQ Health.

INTRODUCTION: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community members experience adverse health outcomes at higher rates than non-LGBTQ individuals. We examined the impact of student demographics as well as gender and sexuality didactic instruction on the attitudes of first-year medical students toward LGBTQ patients. METHODS: In January 2017, 255 first-year students at an urban allopathic medical school participated in a gender and sexuality health curriculum. We assessed student attitudes regarding LGBTQ patients using anonymous pre- and postintervention surveys. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of 255 possible respondents, we received 244 responses to the preintervention survey (95.7% response rate) and 253 to the postintervention survey (99.2% response rate). Participants were predominantly white (66.8%), heterosexual (94.7%), and cisgender (100%). Respondents who identified as LGBQ were significantly (P<.05) more likely than heterosexual students to agree with the following preintervention statements, among others: (1) Discordance between birth sex and gender is a natural human phenomenon, (2) When meeting a patient for the first time, I feel comfortable asking what pronoun they use, (3) I am able to empathize with the life experience of an LGB/T patient, (4) I am motivated to seek out opportunities to learn more about LGBTQ-specific health care issues. Statistically significant changes in attitudes between time points are seen in 4 out of 15 items. CONCLUSION: A focused gender and sexuality curriculum appears to impact medical student attitudes regarding LGBTQ patients. Furthermore, recruitment of LGBTQ-identifying medical students may translate into improved workforce motivation to provide health care for LGBTQ patients.

Student Reflections on Interprofessional Education: Moving from Concepts to Collaboration.

PURPOSE: We analyzed student reflection essays to evaluate the impact of an interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum on what students value and personally learn from their participation. METHODS: After completing a 2-year IPE curriculum in the Health Mentors Program (HMP), while partnered with a mentor with chronic disease(s), 264 students from six health professions submitted personal reflection papers, using the Rolfe Reflection-in-Action model. A sample of 60 essays was analyzed using conventional content analysis guided by grounded theory. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed 15 themes and 14 subthemes in the essays. The themes and subthemes were organized into four main categories: program, mentor, team, and self. Most students viewed the HMP curricular design positively. In particular, they cited the team-based home visit as a critical piece in changing their perceptions of the impact of chronic disease on their health mentor. Mentors' positive attitude and approach toward life also had a profound impact on students. Approximately half of the students identified positive team dynamics as a key component for optimal patient care and better health outcomes, noting improved understanding of team members' professional roles and responsibilities after working together in this longitudinal IPE program. The "self" category had the highest frequency count, with students describing positive changes in self-assessed knowledge, skills, and attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reflective writing is an effective exercise through which students can explore their attitudes toward IPE and team-based care of individuals with chronic diseases. After participation in this IPE curriculum, students identified having an improved understanding of collaborative practice goals, indicative of meeting an IPE core competency, and described a new understanding of patient-centeredness.

The health mentors program: three years experience with longitudinal, patient-centered interprofessional education.

Increased emphasis on team care has accelerated interprofessional education (IPE) of health professionals. The health mentors program (HMP) is a required, longitudinal, interprofessional curriculum for all matriculating students from medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, pharmacy, and couple and family therapy. Volunteer lay health mentors serve as educators. Student teams complete four modules over 2 years. A mixed-methods approach has been employed since program inception, evaluating 2911 students enrolled in HMP from 2007 to 2013. Program impact on 577 students enrolled from 2009-2011 is reported. Two interprofessional scales were employed to measure attitudes toward IPE and attitudes toward interprofessional practice. Focus groups and reflection papers provide qualitative data. Students enter professional training with very positive attitudes toward IPE, which are maintained over 2 years. Students demonstrated significantly improved attitudes toward team care, which were not different across programs. Qualitative data suggested limited tolerance for logistic challenges posed by IPE, but strongly support that students achieved the major program goals of understanding the roles of colleagues and understanding the perspective of patients. Ongoing longitudinal evaluation will further elucidate the impact on future practice and patient outcomes.

Do we pay our community preceptors? Results from a CERA clerkship directors' survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine clerkships depend heavily on community-based family physician preceptors to teach medical students. These preceptors have traditionally been unpaid, but in recent years some clerkships have started to pay preceptors. This study determines trends in the number and geographic region of programs that pay their community preceptors, identifies reasons programs pay or do not pay, and investigates perceived advantages and disadvantages of payment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of 134 family medicine clerkship directors at allopathic US medical schools. RESULTS: The response rate was 62% (83/132 clerkship directors). Nineteen of these (23%) currently pay community preceptors, 11 of whom are located in either New England or the South Atlantic region. Sixty-three percent of programs who pay report that their community preceptors are also paid for teaching other learners, compared to 32% of those programs who do not pay. Paying respondents displayed more positive attitudes toward paying community preceptors, though a majority of non-paying respondents indicated they would pay if they had the financial resources. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clerkships do not pay their community preceptors to teach medical students, but competition from other learners may drive more medical schools to consider payment to help with preceptor recruitment and retention. Medical schools located in regions where there is competition for community preceptors from other medical and non-medical schools may need to consider paying preceptors as part of recruitment and retention efforts.

Clerkship directors' characteristics, scholarship, and support: a summary of published surveys from seven medical specialties.

BACKGROUND: Clerkship directors (CDs) ensure that medical students achieve the core clinical skills needed to be effective physicians. Recently guidelines for time and support for U.S. CDs have been published by the Alliance for Clinical Education. PURPOSE: This article reviews 14 published surveys of CDs in seven specialties and assesses CDs' personal characteristics, scholarship, and support for their position. METHODS: Investigators reviewed CD surveys conducted over the last 12 years from seven different specialties. Comparisons were made of CDs demographics, departmental and school support, time allotted to the position, and publication rates. RESULTS: Department support was generally good, but school support was often felt to be lacking. The number of publications was relatively low. Time allotted for the position was lower than the 50% recommended in all specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Many CDs do not feel adequately supported by time or resources. Future studies need to more closely define what support is needed and what impact CD characteristics, scholarship, and resources have on medical student education.

Predoctoral directors: who are they and what do they do in these trying times?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine faces declining student interest and funding. Predoctoral directors will help lead efforts to overcome these challenges. Academic success will be important for predoctoral directors to be effective leaders in academic health centers. We therefore sought to describe predoctoral directors and factors associated with their academic success. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional survey of all family medicine predoctoral directors at US allopathic medical schools using a Web-based questionnaire. The response rate was 82%. We measured academic success using a variable combining rank and tenure status. We used bivariate analysis and multiple linear regression analysis to identify factors associated with academic success. RESULTS: The mean age of predoctoral directors is 47, and 45% are women. Forty-two percent are assistant professors, 36% associate professors, 20% full professors, and 33% are on a tenure track. Sixty-four percent of predoctoral programs receive Title VII funding, and 63% of predoctoral directors believe that loss of Title VII funding will adversely affect student education. Factors associated with academic success include years since residency, total publications, years as predoctoral director, male gender, state funding for predoctoral family medicine programs, and participation in an academic fellowship. Involvement in educational research was associated with number of publications. CONCLUSIONS: Providing predoctoral directors with the skills and support needed to study their educational undertakings and publish their findings may help them achieve academic success. Medical educators must assess the effects of loss of Title VII funding on predoctoral education while seeking new sources of funding.