Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The United States faces a shortage of primary care physicians and declining number of medical students choosing primary care careers. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 2 similar national surveys of senior medical students from 1990 and 2007 that addressed student characteristics, specialties chosen, clerkship experiences, perceptions of internal medicine (IM) compared with other specialties, and influential aspects of IM. We compared responses from 1990 and 2007 by analyzing a merged data set of identical items from the 2 surveys (65% of the items). RESULTS: The total sample of 2421 students comprised 1244 at 16 schools in 1990 (response rate, 75%) and 1177 at 11 schools in 2007 (82%). In 2007, there were more women (52% vs 37%, P < .001) and more educational debt (mean, $101 000 vs $63 000, P < .001). Similar proportions of students planned IM careers (23% vs 24%), although plans to practice general IM dropped from 9% to 2% (P < .001). The appeal of primary care as an influence toward IM declined from 57% to 33% (P < .001). More 2007 students reported high satisfaction with the IM clerkship (78% vs 38%, P < .001). Both cohorts thought that workload and stress are greater in IM than in other fields. Students in 2007 felt that opportunities for meaningful work in IM were greater than did students in 1990 (58% vs 42%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: More students in 2007 than in 1990 viewed IM as a potentially meaningful career. However, the 2007 students had higher debt, more negative perceptions of workload and stress in IM, and less career interest in general IM. To rebuild the generalist physician workforce, improving students' experience of IM in medical school is no longer sufficient. Bolder reform will be required to improve the educational pipeline, practice, and payment of generalist IM physicians

PURPOSE: Medical students' career choices affect health care. To understand how to increase the number of students who choose careers in internal medicine (IM), students who seriously considered IM but chose another field ('Switchers') and those who rejected IM ('Never Considered') were compared with those who chose IM ('Choosers'). METHOD: Fourth-year medical students from 11 U.S. institutions were surveyed about demographics, medical school educational experiences, and aspects of the specialty of IM. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models examined associations between student characteristics and classification as Switchers, Choosers, and Never Considered. RESULTS: A total of 1,177 students completed the survey (82% response rate). There were 274 (23%) Choosers, 398 (34%) Switchers, and 499 (43%) Never Considered. The authors' models explained over 80% of variance in these three career choice classification groups. For most responses, an increasingly favorable gradient from Never Considered to Choosers was observed. Multivariate analysis revealed six items that were associated with higher probability of choosing IM: types of patients internists see, timing of career decision, interest groups, intellectual challenge, satisfaction among internists, and the core IM clerkship. CONCLUSIONS: Several potentially modifiable educational experiences and aspects of IM distinguished Switchers from the other two groups. The percentage of variance explained by group suggests that these findings identify important underpinnings of career decisions. These items also suggest ways that educational experiences and aspects of the specialty could be redesigned by academicians and policy makers to improve the attractiveness of IM careers

BACKGROUND: Latino immigrants face a higher burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening rates are low. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in increasing the rate of CRC screening among Latino immigrants. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial, with randomization at the physician level. PARTICIPANTS: Pairs of 65 primary care physicians and 65 Latino immigrant patients participated, 31 in the intervention and 34 in the control group. INTERVENTION: CRC educational video in Spanish on a portable personal digital video display device accompanied by a brochure with key information for the patient, and a patient-delivered paper-based reminder for their physician. MEASUREMENTS: Completed CRC screening, physician recommendation for CRC screening, and patient adherence to physician recommended CRC screening. RESULTS: The overall rate of completed screening for CRC was 55% for the intervention and 18% for the control group (p = 0.002). Physicians recommended CRC screening for 61% of patients in the intervention group versus 41% in the control group (p = 0.08). Of those that received a recommendation, 90% in the intervention group adhered to it versus 26% in the control group (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was successful in increasing rates of completed CRC screening primarily through increasing adherence after screening was recommended. Additional efforts should focus on developing new strategies to increase physician recommendation for CRC screening, while employing effective patient adherence interventions

Researchers lack the rich evidence base and benchmark patient outcomes needed to evaluate the effectiveness of medical education practice and guide policy. The authors offer a framework for medical education research that focuses on physician-influenced patient outcomes that are potentially sensitive to medical education. Adapting the concept of ambulatory care sensitive conditions, which provided traction to health services research by defining benchmark patient outcomes to measure health system performance, the authors introduce the concept and propose the adoption of educationally sensitive patient outcomes and suggest two measures: patient activation and clinical microsystem activation. They assert that the ultimate goal of medical education is to ensure that measurement of future physicians' competence and skills is based not only on biomedical knowledge and critical clinical skills but also on the ability to translate these competencies into effective patient- and systems-level outcomes. The authors consider methodological approaches and challenges to measuring such outcomes and argue for large, multiinstitutional, prospective cohort studies and the development of a national Database for Research in Education in Academic Medicine to provide the needed infrastructure. They advocate taking the next steps to establish an educational evidence base to guide the academic medical centers of the 21st century in aligning medical education practice with health care delivery that meets the needs of individuals and populations

New applications of evolutionary biology in medicine are being discovered at an accelerating rate, but few physicians have sufficient educational background to use them fully. This article summarizes suggestions from several groups that have considered how evolutionary biology can be useful in medicine, what physicians should learn about it, and when and how they should learn it. Our general conclusion is that evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. In addition to looking at established evolutionary methods and topics, such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, we highlight questions about why natural selection leaves bodies vulnerable to disease. Knowledge about evolution provides physicians with an integrative framework that links otherwise disparate bits of knowledge. It replaces the prevalent view of bodies as machines with a biological view of bodies shaped by evolutionary processes. Like other basic sciences, evolutionary biology needs to be taught both before and during medical school. Most introductory biology courses are insufficient to establish competency in evolutionary biology. Premedical students need evolution courses, possibly ones that emphasize medically relevant aspects. In medical school, evolutionary biology should be taught as one of the basic medical sciences. This will require a course that reviews basic principles and specific medical applications, followed by an integrated presentation of evolutionary aspects that apply to each disease and organ system. Evolutionary biology is not just another topic vying for inclusion in the curriculum; it is an essential foundation for a biological understanding of health and disease