Climate Change Curriculum in a Network of US Family Medicine Residency Programs.

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-23-00850.1
Jennifer S Robohm, Grace Shih, Robert Stenger
{"title":"Climate Change Curriculum in a Network of US Family Medicine Residency Programs.","authors":"Jennifer S Robohm, Grace Shih, Robert Stenger","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-23-00850.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Physicians require climate-related training, but not enough is known about actual or desired training at the graduate medical education level. <b>Objective</b> To quantify the climate curriculum provided within a network of family medicine residency programs in the Northwestern United States, to assess barriers to adoption of climate curricula, and to identify preferred climate-related content, delivery methods, and program actions. <b>Methods</b> In fall 2021, residents and faculty in a family medicine residency network responded to a 25-item, anonymous, online survey about climate-related training within their programs. Likert scales were used to assess the extent of current and desired climate curricula in respondent programs, and a paired samples <i>t</i> test was used to compare them. Drop-down menus and frequencies were used to identify top barriers to integration of a climate curriculum, and preferred curricular content, delivery methods, and program actions. <b>Results</b> Responses were received from 19.3% (246 of 1275) of potential respondents. Nearly ninety percent (215 of 240) reported little or no climate content in their programs. Respondents desired significantly more climate-related training (t[237]=18.17; <i>P</i><.001; Cohen's d=1.18) but identified several barriers, including insufficient time/competing curricular priorities (80.7%, 192 of 238), concern about the political/controversial nature of the topic (27.3%, 65 of 238), and perceived irrelevance (10.9%, 26 of 238). More respondents selected integration of climate content throughout relevant didactics (62.2%, 145 of 233) than other delivery methods. Over 42% of respondents selected each of the climate-related topics and program actions suggested. <b>Conclusions</b> Despite a number of barriers, most family medicine faculty and residents desire significantly more climate-related content in their training curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"16 6 Suppl","pages":"78-85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11644594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of graduate medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-23-00850.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Physicians require climate-related training, but not enough is known about actual or desired training at the graduate medical education level. Objective To quantify the climate curriculum provided within a network of family medicine residency programs in the Northwestern United States, to assess barriers to adoption of climate curricula, and to identify preferred climate-related content, delivery methods, and program actions. Methods In fall 2021, residents and faculty in a family medicine residency network responded to a 25-item, anonymous, online survey about climate-related training within their programs. Likert scales were used to assess the extent of current and desired climate curricula in respondent programs, and a paired samples t test was used to compare them. Drop-down menus and frequencies were used to identify top barriers to integration of a climate curriculum, and preferred curricular content, delivery methods, and program actions. Results Responses were received from 19.3% (246 of 1275) of potential respondents. Nearly ninety percent (215 of 240) reported little or no climate content in their programs. Respondents desired significantly more climate-related training (t[237]=18.17; P<.001; Cohen's d=1.18) but identified several barriers, including insufficient time/competing curricular priorities (80.7%, 192 of 238), concern about the political/controversial nature of the topic (27.3%, 65 of 238), and perceived irrelevance (10.9%, 26 of 238). More respondents selected integration of climate content throughout relevant didactics (62.2%, 145 of 233) than other delivery methods. Over 42% of respondents selected each of the climate-related topics and program actions suggested. Conclusions Despite a number of barriers, most family medicine faculty and residents desire significantly more climate-related content in their training curricula.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of graduate medical education
Journal of graduate medical education Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
248
期刊介绍: - Be the leading peer-reviewed journal in graduate medical education; - Promote scholarship and enhance the quality of research in the field; - Disseminate evidence-based approaches for teaching, assessment, and improving the learning environment; and - Generate new knowledge that enhances graduates'' ability to provide high-quality, cost-effective care.
期刊最新文献
A Residency Elective in Sustainable Health Care. Adapting the Planetary Health Report Card for Graduate Medical Training Programs. An Interprofessional Approach to Prepare Medical Residents and Fellows to Address Climate- and Environment-Related Health Risks. Assessing Physician Climate Change Competency via Medical Licensing and Board Examinations: Lessons From Integrating Ultrasound Topics in Emergency Medicine. Climate Change Curriculum in a Network of US Family Medicine Residency Programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1