ABSTRACT
Resumen: Objetivo: Evaluar el desempeño de las facultades y escuelas de medicina (FEM) utilizando como subrogado los resultados del Examen Nacional para Aspirantes a Residencias Médicas (ENARM). Material y métodos: Se analizaron las bases de datos oficiales del ENARM 2016 y 2017, empleando cinco criterios de desempeño (CD) por cada FEM: dos oficiales y tres creados exprofeso. Resultados. En 2016 y 2017 se registraron sustentantes de 112 y 115 FEM, respectivamente. Dependiendo del CD, la FEM que quedó clasificada en el primer lugar obtuvo entre 5 y 20 puntos más que la del segundo lugar, y entre 23 y 98 puntos más que la FEM ubicada en el último lugar. Aproximadamente 25% de los sustentantes fueron calificados como "deficientes en conocimientos" y aproximadamente 80% de éstos provenían de menos de un tercio de las FEM. Conclusiones: El ENARM arroja información sobre el desempeño de las FEM. Aproximadamente uno de cada cuatro sustentantes obtuvo puntajes menores al aprobatorio en cualquier especialidad.
Abstract: Objective: To assess the performance of medical schools (FEM) by analyzing the results of their applicants in the Examen Nacional para Aspirantes a Residencias Médicas (ENARM). Materials and methods: Five performance criteria, two official and three created on purpose, were calculated from the ENARM-2016 and -2017 official databases to assess FEM performance. Results: In 2016 and 2017, applicants registered from 112 and 115 FEM, respectively. Depending on the performance criteria, the FEM in the first place obtained 5 to 20 points more than the one placed second, and 23 to 98 points more than the FEM in the last place. Approximately 25% applicants were classified as "knowledge-deficient," and about 80% of these originated from less than one third of the FEM. Conclusion: The ENARM results provide information on the performance of the FEM. Approximately one of every four applicants obtained scores lower than the approval threshold of any specialty.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Schools, Medical/standards , Academic Performance/standards , Internship and Residency , Quality of Health Care , Schools, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Linear Models , Sex Factors , Databases, Factual , Family Practice/education , General Practice/education , Academic Performance/statistics & numerical data , MexicoABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of medical schools (FEM) by analyzing the results of their applicants in the Examen Nacional para Aspirantes a Residencias Médicas (ENARM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five performance criteria, two official and three created on purpose, were calculated from the ENARM-2016 and -2017 official databases to assess FEM performance. RESULTS: In 2016 and 2017, applicants registered from 112 and 115 FEM, respectively. Depending on the performance criteria, the FEM in the first place obtained 5 to 20 points more than the one placed second, and 23 to 98 points more than the FEM in the last place. Approximately 25% applicants were classified as "knowledge-deficient," and about 80% of these originated from less than one third of the FEM. CONCLUSIONS: The ENARM results provide information on the performance of the FEM. Approximately one of every four applicants obtained scores lower than the approval threshold of any specialty.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluar el desempeño de las facultades y escuelas de medicina (FEM) utilizando como subrogado los resultados del Examen Nacional para Aspirantes a Residencias Médicas (ENARM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Se analizaron las bases de datos oficiales del ENARM 2016 y 2017, empleando cinco criterios de desempeño (CD) por cada FEM: dos oficiales y tres creados exprofeso. RESULTS: En 2016 y 2017 se registraron sustentantes de 112 y 115 FEM, respectivamente. Dependiendo del CD, la FEM que quedó clasificada en el primer lugar obtuvo entre 5 y 20 puntos más que la del segundo lugar, y entre 23 y 98 puntos más que la FEM ubicada en el último lugar. Aproximadamente 25% de los sustentantes fueron calificados como "deficientes en conocimientos" y aproximadamente 80% de éstos provenían de menos de un tercio de las FEM. CONCLUSIONS: El ENARM arroja información sobre el desempeño de las FEM. Aproximadamente uno de cada cuatro sustentantes obtuvo puntajes menores al aprobatorio en cualquier especialidad.
Subject(s)
Academic Performance/standards , Internship and Residency , Schools, Medical/standards , Academic Performance/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Databases, Factual , Family Practice/education , Female , General Practice/education , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Mexico , Quality of Health Care , Schools, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Sex FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This is a demand-based infodemiology study using the Google Trends and AdWords tools to illustrate infodemiology's potential use in rheumatology. The study investigates three questions in North American countries: (1) What terms associated with "rheumatology" and "arthritis" do people search for on Google? (2) What is the search volume for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)? and (3) What is the search volume for the term "arthritis" compared with for "hepatitis C" and "breast cancer"? METHODS: We conducted independent searches by country and search term for 2015-2017. Seventeen DMARDs were searched for 2015 through May 2018, with the turmeric remedy included for comparison. Data were exported to Excel for further analysis, adjusted by country population, and expressed as searches per 100,000 inhabitants (SpTh). RESULTS: There were approximately 550 associated terms for "arthritis" in each country, and 5679 SpTh for DMARDs across the three countries. Searches for turmeric numbered slightly lower than for all DMARDs together in Canada and the USA, but were 70% higher in Mexico. Turmeric was also searched four times more than the most-searched biological DMARD in Canada and the USA, and 60 times more in Mexico. Arthritis was more commonly searched for in Canada than hepatitis C and breast cancer, but hepatitis C was highest in the USA and breast cancer in Mexico. Monthly trends did not show expected peaks associated with arthritis awareness campaigns. CONCLUSION: Infodemiology provides preliminary information that could help in generating hypotheses, assessing health-care interventions, or even in providing patient-centered care.
