In February 2020, the governing bodies of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced the decision to change Step 1 score reporting from a three-digit system to pass/fail designation. Previous studies theorized that Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) will become the numerical standard by which residency directors can quickly sort through program applicants. The goal of this study is to review prior research and identify significant factors associated with Step 2 CK outcomes.A systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC that included articles published between 2005 and 2015 was conducted using the keywords "USMLE," "Step 2 CK," "score," "success," and "predictors."After screening the initial search yield of 3,239 articles, 52 articles were included for this review. Positively correlated factors included Step 1 score, clinical block grades, Comprehensive Clinical Science Self-Assessment (CCSSA), Comprehensive Clinical Science Examination (CCSE), and volunteerism. Factors such as clerkship sequence and pass/fail grading failed to correlate with Step 2 CK. Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score (p < 0.01) and undergraduate grade point average (GPA) (p = 0.01) positively correlated, while age displayed a negative correlation. Additionally, females typically scored higher on Step 2 CK than their male peers.The study findings suggest that continuous learning and academic success throughout medical school positively influence eventual Step 2 CK scoring. Performance on USMLE practice examinations, Step 1, and clinical evaluations serve as positive predictors for Step 2 CK scores. Interestingly, changing answers and spending more time on each question during the examination were associated with higher scores.

No abstract

Background Current practices for engaging patients in patient-oriented research (POR) result in a narrow pool of patient perspectives being reflected in POR. This project aims to address gaps in methodological knowledge to foster diversity in POR, through the co-design and evaluation of a series of educational modules for health researchers in British Columbia, Canada. Methods Modules were co-created by a team of academic researchers and patient partners from hardly-reached communities. The modules are presented using the Tapestry Tool, an interactive, online educational platform. Our evaluation framework focused on engagement, content quality, and predicted behavior change. The User Engagement Scale short form (UES-SF) measured participants’ level of engagement with the modules. Survey evaluation items assessed the content within the modules and participants' perceptions of how the modules will impact their behavior. Evaluation items modeled on the theory of planned behavior, administered before and after viewing the modules, assessed the impact of the modules on participants’ perceptions of diversity in POR. Results Seventy-four health researchers evaluated the modules. Researchers’ engagement and ratings of module content were high. Subjective behavioral control over fostering diversity in POR increased significantly after viewing the modules. Conclusions Our results suggest the modules may be an engaging way to provide health researchers with tools and knowledge to increase diversity in health research. Future studies are needed to investigate best practices for engaging with communities not represented in this pilot project, such as children and youth, Indigenous Peoples, and Black communities. While educational interventions represent one route to increasing diversity in POR, individual efforts must occur in tandem with high-level changes that address systemic barriers to engagement.

No abstract