Family Medicine最新文献

Background and objectives: Despite the persistent primary care physician shortage over 2 decades of allopathic medical school expansion, some medical schools are absent a department of family medicine; these schools are designated as "target" schools. These absences are important because evidence has demonstrated the association between structured exposure to family medicine during medical school and the proportion of students who ultimately select a career in family medicine. In this study, we aimed to address part of this gap by defining and characterizing the current landscape of US allopathic target schools.

Methods: We identified allopathic target schools by reviewing all Liaison Committee of Medical Education (LCME) accredited institutions for the presence of a family medicine department. To compare these schools in terms of family medicine representation and outcomes, we curated descriptive data from publicly available websites, previously published family medicine match results, and school rankings for primary care.

Results: We identified 12 target schools (8.7% of all US allopathic accredited medical schools) with considerable heterogeneity in opportunities for family medicine engagement, leadership, and training. Target schools with greater family medicine representation had increased outcomes for family medicine workforce and primary care opportunities.

Conclusion: With growing primary care workforce gaps, target schools have a responsibility to enhance family medicine presence and representation at their institutions. We provide recommendations at the institutional, specialty, and national level to increase family medicine representation at target schools, with the goal that all schools eventually establish a department of family medicine.

Background and objectives: We submitted research questions to the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) to assess the format of family medicine resident education about health disparities associated with incarceration and the perceived efficacy of efforts to prepare graduates for competent care of formerly incarcerated patients in practice. We think this is a universal problem, and current efforts are insufficient.

Methods: We evaluated data as part of the fall 2022 CERA survey of program directors (PDs). We reviewed descriptive statistics, generated comparative analysis, and reported relational analysis. We analyzed internal structure with principal component analysis and inter-item reliability.

Results: A total of 286 out of 678 (42%) eligible PDs completed the survey. Most respondents felt that educating residents about health disparities associated with incarceration was important and that residents would welcome that education. However, PDs lacked existing curricula. PDs did not think that medical school graduates were well-prepared in this area, and ambivalence existed about whether residency graduates were well-prepared to treat formerly incarcerated patients upon graduation. Comparative analysis revealed differences in responses based on the type of program, the program and community size, and the PD demographics.

Conclusions: PDs acknowledged the importance of training residents about health disparities associated with incarceration and about care for formerly incarcerated patients in practice. However, they identified a gap between what was currently offered and what is needed to impact perception of resident readiness upon graduation. This training was felt to be most important in university-based programs with 31+ residents in US communities of greater than 150,000 people. We found no difference based on geographic location.

Background and objectives: Little is known about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) education in family medicine clerkships during medical school. Our study aimed to describe coverage of PrEP education in family medicine clerkships and explore barriers if this education was absent.

Methods: Data were collected through the 2023 Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Education Research Alliance (CERA) Family Medicine Clerkship Director Survey. We inquired about provision of PrEP to patients, faculty expertise with PrEP, PrEP curriculum in the clerkship, barriers to including PrEP in the clerkship curriculum, and willingness of directors to add PrEP online modules to the clerkship if available.

Results: The response rate was 56.8% (96/169). Nine participants did not complete the PrEP questions and were excluded from analyses. Nearly two-thirds of clerkship directors perceived PrEP as an important topic in the family medicine clerkship; however, only one-third of clerkships included PrEP curriculum through clinical experiences (58.5%), didactics (17.1%), or both (14.6%). Barriers to including PrEP were lack of time in the curriculum (63.5%) and having other more important topics to cover (25.7%), but 38.9% said they would include PrEP in the clerkship if free online modules were available.

Conclusions: Clerkships were more likely to include PrEP curriculum in the family medicine clerkship if they had faculty with sufficient expertise or if clerkship directors believed it was important to teach PrEP in the curriculum. Offering accessible educational content can enhance educational opportunities on PrEP for medical students.

Background and objectives: Despite the increasing number of sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients in the United States and designation by the National Institutes of Health as a population with health disparities, available tools are lacking to train medical students on appropriate care for this population. Therefore, we developed and implemented a novel, self-directed, 2-week online elective for undergraduate medical students. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this course in increasing medical students' competency and confidence in caring for SGM patients.

Methods: We developed the curriculum using Kern's six-step model for curriculum development. We created anonymous pre- and postcourse surveys using the standardized Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Survey (LGBT-DOCSS) questionnaire to assess cultural competence, as well as a 5-point Likert-scored survey to assess self-perceived confidence in the care of SGM patients. We tested the statistical significance in pre- and postsurvey scores via paired sample t tests in R (R Project for Statistical Computing).

Results: We found statistically significant increases in the LGBT-DOCSS categories of clinical preparedness (P<.001), basic knowledge (P<.001), overall competency (P<.001), and self-perceived confidence in caring for SGM patients (P<.001, N=33).

Conclusions: The course represents an effective solution for increasing medical students' self-perceived competence and confidence in caring for SGM patients. The flexibility and ease of the online format may be appealing to both students and institutions, and ultimately can serve to increase access to crucial content that is largely absent from current undergraduate medical education. Future evaluation efforts will be required to determine whether the course impacts long-term behavioral changes and outcomes.