Learning the Language of Medical Device Innovation: A Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Elective for Medical Students.

PROBLEM: Physicians are playing a growing role as clinician-innovators. Academic physicians are well positioned to contribute to the medical device innovation process, yet few medical school curricula provide students opportunities to learn the conceptual framework for clinical needs finding, needs screening, concept generation and iterative prototyping, and intellectual property management. This framework supports innovation and encourages the development of valuable interdisciplinary communication skills and collaborative learning strategies. APPROACH: Our university offers a novel 3-year-long medical student Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Elective in Biodesign (MSLIEB) that teaches medical device innovation in 4 stages: (1) seminars and small-group work, (2) shared clinical experiences for needs finding, (3) concept generation and product development by serving as consultants for biomedical engineering capstone projects, and (4) reflection and mentorship. The MSLIEB objectives are to: create a longitudinal interdisciplinary peer mentorship relationship between undergraduate biomedical engineering students and medical students, and encourage codevelopment of professional identities in relation to medical device innovation. OUTCOMES: The MSLIEB enrolled 5 entering cohorts from 2017 to 2021 with a total of 37 medical student participants. The first full entering cohort of 12 medical students produced 8 mentored biomedical engineering capstone projects, 7 of which were based on clinical needs statements derived from earlier in the elective. Medical student participants have coauthored poster and oral presentations; contributed to projects that won WolfieTank, a university-wide competition modeled after the television show Shark Tank; and participated in the filing of provisional patents. Students reflecting on the course reported a change in their attitude towards existing medical problems, felt better-equipped to collaboratively design solutions for clinical needs, and considered a potential career path in device design. NEXT STEPS: The MSLIEB will be scaled up by recruiting additional faculty, broadening clinical opportunities to include the outpatient setting, and increasing medical student access to rapid prototyping equipment.

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact.

BACKGROUND: Publications are an important component of academic careers. AIMS: We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals' Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. RESULTS: We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p < 0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p < 0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

Fellowship program directors and trainees across the United States find parental leave policies to be inconsistent, inaccessible, and inadequate.

INTRODUCTION: Determine the consistency, accessibility, and adequacy of parental leave policies for adult and pediatric medicine fellowship programs. METHODS: We administered a 40-question survey to fellowship program directors (PDs) and trainees in adult and pediatric cardiology, hematology/oncology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology/critical care fellowship programs in the United States. We used Chi-square tests to compare proportions for categorical variables and t-tests to compare means for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 190 PDs from 500 programs (38.0%) and 236 trainees from 142 programs (28.4%) responded. Most respondents did not believe that parental leave policies were accessible publicly (322/426; 75.6%), on password-protected intranet (343/426; 80.5%), or upon request (240/426; 56.3%). The PDs and trainees broadly felt that parental leave for fellows should be 5-10 weeks (156/426; 36.6%) or 11-15 weeks (165/426; 38.7%). A majority of PDs felt that there was no increased burden upon other fellows (122/190; 64.2%) or change in overall well-being (110/190; 57.9%). When asked about the biggest barrier to parental leave support, most PDs noted time constrains of fellowship (101/190; 53.1%) and the limited number of fellows (43/190; 22.6%). Trainees similarly selected the time constraints of training (88/236; 37.3%), but nearly one-fifth chose the culture in medicine (44/236; 18.6%). There were no statistically significant differences in answers based on the respondents' sex, specialty, or subspecialty. DISCUSSION: Parental leave policies are broadly in place, but did not feel these were readily accessible, standardized, or of optimum length. PDs and trainees noted several barriers that undermine support for better parental leave policies, including time constraints of fellowship, the limited number of fellows for coverage, and workplace culture. Standardization of parental leave policies is advisable to allow trainees to pursue fellowship training and care for their newborns without undermining their educational experiences.