The mentored experience to enhance opportunities in research (METEOR) program.

PROBLEM: Medical students from groups that are underrepresented in medicine are less likely to pursue careers that incorporate research as compared to their white peers. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded institutions encouraged centers to establish short-term, mentored summer research opportunities to motivate students underrepresented in medicine to enroll in medical school and ideally choose a career that incorporates research into their clinical practice. APPROACH: The Mentored Experience To Enhance Opportunities in Research (METEOR) Program was established in 2012 in partnership with the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at Children's National (CTSI-CN) and The George Washington University (GW) School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Rather than a single summer experience, the METEOR Program is innovative in that it is intended to support the success of participants throughout the duration of their medical school training and beyond. OUTCOMES: Scholarly output of participants of the first four cohorts included 23 empirical research articles in peer-reviewed journals, five review articles, eight case reports, one empirical research article in a student-led journal, one commentary in a professional journal, 20 university-based poster presentations, three national poster presentations, and one international poster presentation. Interviews revealed themes aligned with constructs of the Social Cognitive Career Theory. Overall mentorship was seen as a key component of the METEOR Program. In addition, the ability to come to campus prior to the start of medical school, as part of a cohesive cohort, along with the addition of lectures and field trips, further enhanced participants' experiences. NEXT STEPS: Our findings will be incorporated into improvements to the program for future cohorts and may inform the design of similar mentored research programs. With increased enrollment, quantitative studies of the effectiveness of the program are planned.

Decelerated medical education.

The aim of the study was to obtain information regarding the prevalence, structure, student characteristics and outcomes of formal decelerated medical education programs. A 13-item survey was mailed to all US medical schools examining characteristics of decelerated curricular programs. Responses were received from 77 schools (62% response). Some 24 (31%) indicated a formal decelerated option; 13 (57%) decelerate the first year while four (17%) decelerate year 1 or year 2. Participants may be selected before matriculation or after difficulty in 14 (61%) programs while four (17%) select only after encountering difficulty. Students may unilaterally choose deceleration in 10 (43%); 4.3% (0.1-12) of total matriculants were decelerated. The proportion of decelerated students identified as underrepresented minority (URM) was 37% (0-100), representing 10.5% (0-43) of total URM enrollment. Twelve (52%) programs do not provide unique support beyond deceleration. Standards for advancement are identical for decelerated and regular students in 17 schools (81%). In total, 10% (0-100) of decelerated students were dismissed within the last five years, representing 24% (0-90) of all dismissals. Few schools provided grade point average (GPA) or Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) data but the limited responses indicate that many decelerated students are at risk for academic difficulty. It is concluded that decelerated curricular options are available at a significant number of US medical schools. Decelerated students comprise a small proportion of total enrollment but URM matriculants represent a disproportionate share of participants. Decelerated programs appear to be successful as measured by dismissal rates if one accepts attrition which exceeds that for regular MD students. Variation in dismissal rates is difficult to interpret given the lack of GPA and MCAT data. One half of all programs offer no additional support activities beyond deceleration. More data are needed to determine the relative contribution of deceleration vs. other support measures to the advancement of students at academic risk.