Students revealed that their conflict was connected to feelings of powerlessness, along with exacerbating factors including limited time, concerns about expectations for their behavior, and pessimism about change. Role modeling had a significant influence on consequences related to students' patient-centered values.

A critical component to instituting compassionate, patient-centered diabetes care is the training of health care providers. Our institution developed the Family Centered Experience (FCE), a comprehensive 2-year preclinical program based on longitudinal conversations with patients about living with chronic illness. The goal of the FCE is to explore the experience of illness from the patient's perspective and ultimately to incorporate this perspective in clinical practice. In this qualitative study, we wished to investigate the impact of "diabetes stories"--the stories of FCE volunteers with diabetes--on medical students' understanding of diabetes and its management. Individual interviews were conducted with medical students who had worked with a volunteer with diabetes to answer the questions: "in what ways was learning through these 'diabetes stories' different from that acquired through lectures and textbooks," and "how did these stories impact the students' understanding of diabetes and its care?" Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was performed using Grounded Theory. Several major themes emerged: There was more to diabetes than the "scientific" knowledge acquired through lectures; the stories challenged students' assumptions about having or working with people with diabetes and allowed students to see the world through the perspective of someone with diabetes, and the stories motivated students' development as physicians and influenced their general perspectives of doctoring and medicine. First-person narratives of living with diabetes allow for learning in affective, experiential, and cognitive dimensions, stimulate self reflection and perspective-taking, and enhance growth through the challenging of previous assumptions, beliefs, and perspectives. This type of learning is transformative and may result in a shift in students' perspectives towards more open, inclusive attitudes towards patient-centered diabetes care.

Throughout history, race and ethnicity have been used as key descriptors to categorize and label individuals. The use of these concepts as variables can impact resources, policy, and perceptions in medical education. Despite the pervasive use of race and ethnicity as quantitative variables, it is unclear whether researchers use them in their proper context. In this Eye Opener, we present the following seven considerations with corresponding recommendations, for using race and ethnicity as variables in medical education research: 1) Ensure race and ethnicity variables are used to address questions directly related to these concepts. 2) Use race and ethnicity to represent social experiences, not biological facts, to explain the phenomenon under study. 3) Allow study participants to define their preferred racial and ethnic identity. 4) Collect complete and accurate race and ethnicity data that maximizes data richness and minimizes opportunities for researchers’ assumptions about participants’ identity. 5) Follow evidence-based practices to describe and collapse individual-level race and ethnicity data into broader categories. 6) Align statistical analyses with the study’s conceptualization and operationalization of race and ethnicity. 7) Provide thorough interpretation of results beyond simple reporting of statistical significance. By following these recommendations, medical education researchers can avoid major pitfalls associated with the use of race and ethnicity and make informed decisions around some of the most challenging race and ethnicity topics in medical education.

Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers’ understanding of the study’s limitations and support future investigation.