Background Underrepresented minority (URM) trainees face unique challenges in academic medicine. Near-peer mentorship is an under-described method to support URM trainees. Objective We created and evaluated the Student to Resident Institutional Vehicle for Excellence (STRIVE) program in a large urban medical school and associated residency programs. Methods All URM residents were invited to participate in the STRIVE mentorship program consisting of 3 pillars of programming: medical school curriculum review sessions, panel discussions, and social events for medical students. The program was evaluated through participation rates and a 7-item survey delivered in May 2019 after 3 years of implementation. Results The STRIVE initiative conducted 25 events. Thirty-five of 151 eligible (23%) URM residents participated as mentors for an average of 50 of 110 eligible (45%) URM medical students annually. Resident mentors participated for an average of 3 to 4 hours each year. Twenty of 32 eligible resident mentors (63%) completed the survey. Ninety-five percent (19 of 20) of survey respondents agreed that STRIVE made them a better mentor; 90% (18 of 20) reported that they would have appreciated an equivalent program during their medical school training; and 75% (15 of 20) agreed that the program helped them address the challenges of underrepresentation in medicine. Conclusions Over a 3-year period, STRIVE required a modest amount of resident time and was valued by the URM residents and medical students who participated in the program.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Public mass shootings are a significant public health problem that require ongoing systematic surveillance to test and inform policies that combat gun injuries. Although there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done to stop public mass shootings, opinions on exactly which policies that entails vary, such as the prohibition of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Objective The aim of this study was to determine if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) (1994-2004) reduced the number of public mass shootings while it was in place. Methods We extracted public mass shooting surveillance data from the Violence Project that matched our inclusion criteria of 4 or more fatalities in a public space during a single event. We performed regression discontinuity analysis, taking advantage of the imposition of the FAWB, which included a prohibition on large-capacity magazines in addition to assault weapons. We estimated a regression model of the 5-year moving average number of public mass shootings per year for the period of 1966 to 2019 controlling for population growth and homicides in general, introduced regression discontinuities in the intercept and a time trend for years coincident with the federal legislation (ie, 1994-2004), and also allowed for a differential effect of the homicide rate during this period. We introduced a second set of trend and intercept discontinuities for post-FAWB years to capture the effects of termination of the policy. We used the regression results to predict what would have happened from 1995 to 2019 had there been no FAWB and also to project what would have happened from 2005 onward had it remained in place. Results The FAWB resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths, and number of gun injuries. We estimate that the FAWB prevented 11 public mass shootings during the decade the ban was in place. A continuation of the FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1139 people. Conclusions This study demonstrates the utility of public health surveillance on gun violence. Surveillance informs policy on whether a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines reduces public mass shootings. As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next mass shooting, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that bans on assault weapons and/or large-capacity magazines work.