Academic Psychiatry最新文献

Objective: Development, implementation, and outcomes are described for the Psychiatry Research Methods and Scholarship (PReMS) curriculum targeting research literacy and scholarship during second year post graduate (PGY-2) residency training.

Methods: PReMS development at the University of Colorado Department of Psychiatry (UC-DOP) incorporated expertise from residency leadership, pedagogy, and biostatistics and was fine-tuned during 5 years of implementation. Content addressed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies in research literacy and scholarship. Faculty-authored publications from UC-DOP highlighted research aspects including different study designs, methods, populations, sources of bias, and statistical analyses. Residents chose a paper and led its discussion; lecture materials supported the concepts addressed. Faculty authors were invited to sessions when their papers were presented to meet residents, answer questions, and stimulate discussion. The course director developed an assessment for administration before and after PReMS.

Results: Across five resident cohorts (n = 66), an increasing number and proportion of invited faculty authors attended sessions discussing their papers (93% overall). After PReMS, residents' research literacy scores improved significantly (p < 0.0001) by 17% on average after accounting for cohort; ratings of the importance of research to psychiatrists were unchanged.

Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest PReMS is an effective curriculum to improve research literacy in residency and thereby advance proficiency in critical evaluation of the medical literature, a crucial skill for all physicians to become life-long learners. PReMS innovatively uses resident-led discussions of faculty-authored publications to make pedantic methodological material more interesting and to provide exposure to the implementing program's researchers, potentially enhancing scholarship mentoring opportunities.

Objective: The goal of this study was to assess whether microlearning resources could improve attitudes towards neuroscience, enhance integration of neuroscience concepts into clinical practice, and decrease stigma towards mental illness.

Methods: A national cohort of 120 mental health professionals (psychiatrists; clinical psychologists; psychiatric nurses; and master's-level counselors or social workers) were recruited and randomized into two groups. Each had 3 months of active learning and a 3-month consolidation phase. However, one group had a lagged-start with a 3-month waiting period. During the active phase, each group was encouraged to complete 30 online resources including brief TED-style talks, articles, animated videos, and podcasts. Resources focused on core neuroscience topics and covered a wide range of psychiatric diagnoses and psychological constructs. Both groups completed presurveys and follow-up surveys every 3 months.

Results: After 3 months, in comparison to the waitlist control group, the active group had more positive attitudes towards neuroscience (p = 0.028) and a higher mean score on the Medical Condition Regard Scale (p = 0.001) indicating more positive attitudes towards patients with mental illness; there was no significant difference between groups in application to practice. After 9 months (i.e., after both groups had completed the consolidation phase), significant increases were found across all three measures in the combined cohort. Significant increases in ratings between the pre-survey and consolidation surveys suggest a sustained impact.

Conclusions: Brief online learning experiences may improve attitudes and facilitate the integration of neuroscience into clinical practice among mental health professionals and decrease stigma towards individuals with mental illness.