Journal of General Internal Medicine最新文献

In medical education, learner self-assessments are standard methods used to evaluate the impact of curricula and workshops. Due to the subjective nature of self-assessment, these measures are prone to known biases including framing, recall, social desirability, and response-shift bias. These biases can contribute to floor and ceiling effects of measurement, which can lead to false conclusions about whether the intended learning objectives were achieved. Ideal assessments of skills-based educational activities would include standardized tests and structured observations of learners demonstrating skill use before and after the educational intervention. However, educators often lack the necessary resources, time, and expertise to routinely conduct these appraisals and rely on self-assessment as a pragmatic approach to obtaining curriculum feedback and evaluation data. In this review, we describe three common designs for self-assessments: the pre-post, now-then, and post-only designs. We then give recommendations for choosing between each design to minimize bias. The choice of the best design is based on alignments with four considerations: (1) the educational objectives (e.g., demonstrate skill competency and/or change in skill level); (2) participants' prior experience and shared understanding of levels of skill performance; (3) the nature of the educational activity; and (4) available resources. For each design, we review strengths, weaknesses, and known biases and discuss examples to highlight trade-offs between options. We also discuss the use of control groups and follow-up surveys to measure retention over time as additional methods to address bias and related confounding. The guidance presented here is intended to raise educators' awareness of common pitfalls in self-assessment; minimize the impact of known biases when possible; provide evidence, examples, and rationales for optimal design choices; and increase the rigor of self-assessment evaluations.

Background: Vaccine hesitancy, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations among Veterans, may limit uptake. Behaviorally informed text-based messages have the potential to improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of two different behaviorally informed text message nudges on COVID-19 vaccine scheduling and completion, compared to standard control message.

Design: Prospective, three-arm patient-level randomized quality improvement trial.

Participants: Between March and May 2021, 20,523 Veterans were eligible for the initial series of COVID-19 vaccination, enrolled at two large Veterans Health Administration sites.

Intervention: Arm 1 (Control): standard scheduling message; Arm 2 (Social Good): standard message plus behaviorally informed text message "When you get a vaccine now, you help protect yourself, your family, and your community"; and Arm 3 (Scarcity): standard plus behaviorally informed text message "Only a limited number of vaccine appointments are available."

Main measures: Outcomes were vaccine scheduling and/or completion rate within 7 days of receipt of text message (primary), and within 14 days and 30 days after receipt of text message (secondary).

Key results: Veterans had an overall rate of 19% of scheduling or receiving a vaccination in 7 days. In our adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, we found no difference between intervention social good or scarcity (aOR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.09, for both arms) compared to standard scheduling message. We found no statistical differences in our secondary outcomes.

Conclusions: During the initial phases of vaccine roll-out, two behaviorally informed text messages did not increase COVID-19 vaccination rates among Veterans compared to a standard scheduling message.

Context: Older adults with multimorbidity are underrepresented in clinical trials, with enrollment of Asians particularly low.

Objective: Understand perspectives of US Chinese older adults regarding clinical trial participation.

Study design and analysis: Focus group interviews analyzed using thematic analysis.

Setting: Community/senior centers, academic health systems in Northern and Southern California, and a nationwide registry of Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders.

Population studied: Mandarin- and English-speaking Chinese adults aged ≥ 65 years with multimorbidity.

Outcome measures: Themes related to barriers and facilitators of enrollment in clinical trials of medications.

Results: We conducted 12 focus groups: 7 with non-US-born and 5 with US-born Chinese older adults (n = 83 total). Mean age was 74 years (SD = 5.9), 43 (51.8%) were female, and 47 (56.6%) Mandarin-speaking. US-born participants had greater educational attainment than non-US-born participants. Participants took a mean of 6.1 prescriptions (SD = 1.5). Barriers to participation in clinical trials of medications included lack of awareness of/exposure for patients and community-based Chinese physicians, preference for natural/traditional medicine, risk aversion and safety concerns, desire for privacy, and inconvenience. Trusted influences included physicians, hospitals/health systems, Asian/Chinese community centers, and family (for non-US-born participants). Suggestions to enhance participation included using language and culturally concordant materials/personnel, educating community-based Chinese physicians about clinical trials, involving patient-trusted physicians in recruitment, promoting trials on conditions common in Chinese people or for an existing condition, and financial incentives. US-born participants expressed greater understanding and willingness to join trials. All groups attributed low clinical trial enrollment to non-US-born Chinese adults.

Conclusions: Chinese older adults perceived obstacles to clinical trial participation that could be mitigated by involving trusted physicians in recruitment, using language and culturally concordant materials/staff, and educating patients and community-based physicians. Recognition of differences in attitudes among US- and non-US-born Chinese people may be important to tailoring recruitment strategies.

Holistic review has become the gold standard for residency selection. As a result, many programs are de-emphasizing standardized exam scores and other normative metrics. However, if standardized exam scores predict passing of an initial certifying exam, this may lead to an increase in board failure rates within specific residency training programs who do not emphasize test scores on entry. Currently, the board pass rates of residency programs from many of the American Board of Medical Subspecialities (ABMS) are publicly reported as a rolling average. In theory, this should create accountability but may also create pressure and distort the way residency program selects applicants. The risk to programs of having a lower board pass rate publicly reported incentivizes programs to focus increasingly on standardized test scores, threatening holistic review. All programs do not recruit students entering residency with an identical chance of passing boards. Therefore, we believe the ABMS member boards should stop publicly reporting raw certifying exam rates above a certain threshold for normative comparison. We strongly encourage the use of learning analytics to create a residency "expected board pass rate" that would be a better metric for program evaluation and accreditation.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized among those with lower socioeconomic status and in racial and ethnic minoritized populations who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID.

Objective: To compare disparities in CRC screening before and after the onset of the COVID pandemic among privately insured individuals.

Design: Retrospective cohort study using deidentified claims data from the USA between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022.

Participants: Blue Cross Blue Shield beneficiaries aged 50-75 years with average risk of CRC.

Main measure(s): Mean screening use was compared by demographic and area-level socioeconomic factors between the periods preceding (January 1, 2017 to February 28, 2020) and following (July 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022) the onset of the COVID pandemic. Difference-in-differences analysis was used to evaluate changes in screening differences.

Results: Our study included 21,724,223 beneficiaries. Compared to males, females had higher screening in both periods (p < 0.05), and this sex difference in screening increased 1.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32%, 1.94%) following the onset of the pandemic. Compared to residents in areas with high socioeconomic status (SES), low SES area residents had lower screening (p < 0.001) during both periods. Furthermore, this difference grew 4.32% (95% CI, 3.76%, 4.88%) during the post-onset period. Metropolitan area residents had higher screening than non-metropolitan area residents during both periods (p < 0.001); however, this difference decreased 0.77% (95% CI, 0.34%, 1.20%) during the post-onset period. Among beneficiaries with high risk of CRC, the difference in screening based on social deprivation index and metropolitan area status increased 6.99% (95% CI, 5.77%, 8.20%) and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.88%, 2.74%), respectively.

Conclusions: Among privately insured individuals, CRC screening after the COVID pandemic recovered unevenly based on sex, area-level socioeconomic measures, and metropolitan area status, with pre-pandemic disparities persisting and even worsening for some of the factors.