Who to Interview? Low Adherence by U.S. Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult

Boysen‐Osborn, Megan; Yanuck, Justin; Mattson, James S.; Toohey, Shannon; Wray, Alisa; Wiechmann, Warren; Lahham, Shadi; Langdorf, Mark I.

doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.10.32233

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of the structure of the MSPE, end-users indicated that the noteworthy characteristics were not highly valued with approximately one-third of readers citing it as very or extremely influential. The identification of noteworthy characteristics is sometimes stressful for students, onerous for the MSPE writers, open to implicit bias, and not sufficiently consistent to allow for comparisons of students across schools [ 15 ]. The information provided in noteworthy characteristics is available in other components of the application for those who advocate its usefulness as part of a holistic review of applicants [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Until this issue is addressed, it is likely that residency programs will place greater importance on other objective measures (e.g., USMLE Step 2 CK scores, NBME subject exam scores) or on their own internally generated information, such as the EM’s standard letter of evaluation (SLOE) [ 27 , 28 ]. Some of this mistrust may be mitigated with MSPEs that offer more objective information via useful transparent communication about a student’s professionalism, comparative performance indicators such as class rank, and honesty about academic progress, ideally in the body of the MSPE, not in appendices, which require additional searching and scrolling [ 11 , 15 ]. To maximize benefit to the end-user, the medical education community must strive for greater standardization of this document to promote focus on student performance rather than spending unnecessary time deciphering each school’s unique approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users’ perspective across the specialties

Bird¹,

Friedman

Arayssi

et al. 2021

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important tool of communication used by program directors to make decisions in the residency application process. To understand the perspective and usage of the MSPE across multiple medical specialties now and in anticipation of the planned changes in USMLE Step 1 score-reporting. A survey instrument including quantitative and qualitative measures was developed and piloted. The final survey was distributed to residency programs across 28 specialties in 2020 via the main contact on the ACGME listserv. Of the 28 specialties surveyed, at least one response was received from 26 (93%). Eight percent of all programs (364/4675) responded to the survey, with most respondents being program directors. Usage of the MSPE varied among specialties. Approximately 1/3 of end-users stated that the MSPE is very or extremely influential in their initial screening process. Slightly less than half agreed or strongly agreed that they trust the information to be an accurate representation of applicants, though slightly more than half agree that the MSPE will become more influential once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. Professionalism was rated as the most important component and noteworthy characteristics among the least important in the decision-making process. Performance in the internal medicine clerkship was rated as the most influential while neurology and psychiatry performances were rated as less influential. Overwhelmingly, respondents suggested that including comparative performance and/or class rank would make the MSPE more useful once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. MSPE end-users across a variety of specialties utilize this complex document in different ways and value it differentially in their decision-making processes. Despite this, continued mistrust of the MSPE persists. A better understanding of end-users’ perceptions of the MSPE offers the UME community an opportunity to transform the MSPE into a highly valued, trusted document of communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users’ perspective across the specialties

Bird¹,

Friedman

Arayssi

et al. 2021

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analysis of this RCT will be performed by intent-to-treat (ITT) principle, including all randomized participants 56…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Mobile application intervention to promote self-management in insulin-requiring type 1 and type 2 diabetes individuals: protocol for a mixed methods study and non-blinded randomized controlled trial</p>

Adu¹,

Malabu²,

Malau‐Aduli³

et al. 2019

DMSO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mobile applications (apps) have proven to be useful in supporting diabetes self-care, but non-consideration of users’ needs and non-inclusion of educational features are reasons for low continual use. Well-designed mobile apps that meet the needs of diabetes patients and provide ongoing self-management education and support are required. It was hypothesized that apps designed with such features can improve a range of measures including clinical outcomes, knowledge of diabetes, medication adherence, perceived ability for self-management, and quality-of-life. This may eventually facilitate a more robust and cost-effective approach for improving skills and motivation for the management of diabetes. Methods: This project will be conducted in two phases. It will initially employ a mixed methods study design to investigate the self-management needs and perceptions of diabetes patients on the use of mobile apps to support diabetes self-management. Results of the mixed methods study will inform the content and design of an app which will be employed as an intervention tool in a 12-month parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT will compare outcomes in relation to standard-of-care alone with standard-of-care plus a mobile phone diabetes app among 150 insulin-requiring types 1 and 2 diabetes patients. The primary outcome measures are clinical parameters such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), lipids, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, blood pressure, frequency in events of emergency hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes include knowledge of diabetes, medication intake and adherence, perception of self-care, and quality-of-life. Discussion: Results from this study will provide empirical evidence on the usefulness of a mobile app developed based on self-management needs analysis of diabetic patients. The long-term goal is to harness knowledge gained from this study to provide evidenced-based data, which promote the scale-up or adoption of mobile applications that provide regular, ongoing education and self-management support to people living with diabetes. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000065291, Registered on 17 January, 2018 (prospectively registered).

show abstract

“…78,82,86 MSPE: Twelve articles proposed requiring objective data in the MSPE, particularly class rank, c l e r k s h i p g r a d e s , a n d s h e l f e x a m i n a t i o n scores. 4,11,12,18,31,39,59,[91][92][93][94][95] Proponents also sought disclosure of professionalism issues, academic difficulties, and leaves of absence. Additionally, 8 articles endorsed standardization of the MSPE structure, content, and language.…”

Section: Reforms To the Application Review Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Zastrow

Burk-Rafel²,

London

2021

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Calls to reform the US resident selection process are growing, given increasing competition and inefficiencies of the current system. Though numerous reforms have been proposed, they have not been comprehensively cataloged. Objective This scoping review was conducted to characterize and categorize literature proposing systems-level reforms to the resident selection process. Methods Following Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, searches of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for references published from January 2005 to February 2020. Articles were included if they proposed reforms that were applicable or generalizable to all applicants, medical schools, or residency programs. An inductive approach to qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and higher-order categories. Results Of 10 407 unique references screened, 116 met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis generated 34 codes that were grouped into 14 categories according to the broad stages of resident selection: application submission, application review, interviews, and the Match. The most commonly proposed reforms were implementation of an application cap (n = 28), creation of a standardized program database (n = 21), utilization of standardized letters of evaluation (n = 20), and pre-interview screening (n = 13). Conclusions This scoping review collated and categorized proposed reforms to the resident selection process, developing a common language and framework to facilitate national conversations and change.

show abstract

Who to Interview? Low Adherence by U.S. Medical Schools to Medical Student Performance Evaluation Format Makes Resident Selection Difficult

Cited by 22 publications

References 8 publications

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users’ perspective across the specialties

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users’ perspective across the specialties

<p>Mobile application intervention to promote self-management in insulin-requiring type 1 and type 2 diabetes individuals: protocol for a mixed methods study and non-blinded randomized controlled trial</p>

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About