Erin Griffin

Does Applicant Personality Influence Multiple Mini-Interview Performance and Medical School Acceptance Offers?

Purpose To examine relationships among applicant personality, Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) performance, and medical school acceptance offers. Method The authors conducted an observational study of applicants who participated in the MMI at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine during the 2010–2011 admissions cycle and responded to the Big Five Inventory measuring their personality factors (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness). Individuals’ MMI performance at 10 stations was summarized as a total score. Regression analyses examined associations of personality factors with MMI score, and associations of personality factors and MMI score with acceptance offers. Covariates included sociodemographic and academic performance measures. Results Among the 444 respondents, those with extraversion scores in the top (versus bottom) quartile had significantly higher MMI scores (adjusted parameter estimate = 5.93 higher, 95% CI: 4.27–7.59; P < .01). In a model excluding MMI score, top (versus bottom) quartile agreeableness (AOR = 3.22; 95% CI 1.57–6.58; P < .01) and extraversion (AOR = 3.61; 95% CI 1.91–6.82; P < .01) were associated with acceptance offers. After adding MMI score to the model, high agreeableness (AOR = 4.77; 95% CI 1.95–11.65; P < .01) and MMI score (AOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.26–1.42; P < .01) were associated with acceptance offers. Conclusions Extraversion was associated with MMI performance, whereas both extraversion and agreeableness were associated with acceptance offers. Adoption of the MMI may affect diversity in medical student personalities, with potential implications for students’ professional growth, specialty distribution, and patient care.

Physician Communication Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening: Analysis of Unannounced Standardized Patient Visits

PURPOSE Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module. METHODS Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007–2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS After prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.

Pairing Physician Education With Patient Activation to Improve Shared Decisions in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician’s final recommendations. METHODS Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients’ reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients’ reported shared decision making and the physician’s recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS Patients’ ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.

A comparison of Web-based and small-group palliative and end-of-life care curricula: a quasi-randomized controlled study at one institution.

Purpose Few studies have compared the effect of Web-based eLearning versus small-group learning on medical student outcomes. Palliative and end-of-life (PEOL) education is ideal for this comparison, given uneven access to PEOL experts and content nationally. Method In 2010, the authors enrolled all third-year medical students at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine into a quasi-randomized controlled trial of Web-based interactive education (eDoctoring) compared with small-group education (Doctoring) on PEOL clinical content over two months. Students participated in three 3-hour PEOL sessions with similar content. Outcomes included a 24-item PEOL-specific self-efficacy scale with three domains (diagnosis/treatment [Cronbach alpha = 0.92; CI: 0.91–0.93], communication/prognosis [alpha = 0.95; CI: 0.93–0.96], and social impact/self-care [alpha = 0.91; CI: 0.88–0.92]); 8 knowledge items; 10 curricular advantage/disadvantages; and curricular satisfaction (both students and faculty). Results Students were randomly assigned to Web-based eDoctoring (n = 48) or small-group Doctoring (n = 71) curricula. Self-efficacy and knowledge improved equivalently between groups (e.g., prognosis self-efficacy, 19%; knowledge, 10%–42%). Student and faculty ratings of the Web-based eDoctoring curriculum and the small-group Doctoring curriculum were equivalent for most goals, and overall satisfaction was equivalent for each, with a trend toward decreased eDoctoring student satisfaction. Conclusions Findings showed equivalent gains in self-efficacy and knowledge between students participating in a Web-based PEOL curriculum in comparison with students learning similar content in a small-group format. Web-based curricula can standardize content presentation when local teaching expertise is limited, but it may lead to decreased user satisfaction.

Implementation outcomes of a multiinstitutional web-based ethical, legal, and social implications genetics curriculum for primary care residents in three specialties

Purpose: Medical genetics lends itself to disseminated teaching methods because of mismatches between numbers of physicians having patients with genetic disorders and availability of genetic specialists.Method: During 3 years, we implemented an interactive, web-based curriculum on ethical, legal, and social implications in medical genetics for primary care residents in three specialties at three institutions. Residents took five (of 10) cases and three (of five) tutorials that varied by specialty. We assessed changes in self-efficacy (primary outcome), knowledge, application, and viewpoints.Results: Overall enrollment was 69% (279/403). One institution did not complete implementation and was dropped from pre-post comparisons. We developed a six-factor ethical, legal, and social implications self-efficacy scale (Cronbach α = 0.95). Baseline self-efficacy was moderate (71/115; range: 23–115) and increased 15% after participation. Pre-post knowledge scores were high and unchanged. Residents reported that this curriculum covered ethical, legal, and social implications/genetics better than their usual curricula. Most (68–91%) identified advantages, especially in providing flexibility and stimulating self-directed learning. After participation, residents reported creating learning goals (66%) and acting on those goals (62%).Conclusions: Ethical, legal, and social implications genetics curricular participation led to modest self-efficacy gains. Residents reported that the curriculum covered unique content areas, had advantages over traditional curriculum, and that they applied ethical, legal, and social implications content clinically. We share lessons from developing and implementing this complex web-based curriculum across multiple institutions.

Medical school performance of socioeconomically disadvantaged and underrepresented minority students matriculating after a multiple mini-interview

Abstract:Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMIs) are increasingly used in medical school admissions. We previously reported that while under-represented minority (URM) status was not associated with MMI scores, self-designated disadvantaged applicants had lower MMI scores, possibly affecting their matriculation prospects. No studies have examined how URM status or socioeconomic disadvantage (SED) are associated with academic performance following admission through an MMI. We examined the adjusted associations of MMI scores, SED, and URM status with U.S. Medical Licensing Examination Steps 1 and 2 performance and third-year clerkship Honors, measures affecting residency matching. While URM status was not associated with the measures, students with greater SED had lower Step 1 scores and fewer Honors. Students with higher MMI scores had more Step 1 failures, but more Honors. The findings identify areas to address in medical school admissions, student support, and evaluation processes, which is important given the need for a more representative physician workforce.

Community College Pathways to Medical School and Family Medicine Residency Training

PURPOSE Medical students who attend community college are more likely to express intention to train in family medicine. This study examined whether community college attendance is associated with family medicine residency training in a national sample of US medical school graduates. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Association of American Medical Colleges matriculant files of residency trainees who graduated from medical school between 2010 to 2012. Residency specialty (family medicine vs other) was modeled using logistic regression analysis; the key independent variable was community college attendance, with categories of non–community college (reference); community college while in high school; community college after graduating from high school, then transfer to 4-year university; and community college after graduating from a 4-year university or as a postbaccalaureate. The logistic model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, years in medical school, parental education (a marker of socioeconomic status), and high school US region. RESULTS Of the 43,382 medical school graduates studied, 25.9% attended community college and 8.7% trained in family medicine. In unadjusted analysis, graduates attending community college while in high school, after graduating from high school with transfer to 4-year university, or after graduating from a 4-year university or as a postbaccalaureate (12.0%, 12.7%, and 10.8%, respectively) were more likely to train in family medicine compared with their peers who did not attend community college (7.7%). Respective adjusted odds ratios were 1.47 (95% CI, 1.33-1.63; P <.001), 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.52; P = .009), and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.06-2.29; P = .002). Among family medicine residents, 32.7% of those who were white, 35.2% of those Asian, 50.8% of those Latino, and 32.7% of those black or African American attended community college. CONCLUSIONS US medical school graduates who attended community college were more likely to train in family medicine, suggesting community college is an important pathway for increasing the primary care workforce.