Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: The role of medical students in catalyzing and leading curricular change in US medical schools is not well described. Here, American Medical Association student and physician leaders in the Accelerating Change in Medical Education initiative use qualitative methods to better define student leadership in curricular change.Methods: The authors developed case studies describing student leadership in curricular change efforts. Case studies were presented at a national medical education workshop; participants provided worksheet reflections and were surveyed, and responses were transcribed. Kotter's change management framework was used to categorize reported student roles in curricular change. Thematic analysis was used to identify barriers to student engagement and activators to overcome these barriers.Results: Student roles spanned all eight steps of Kotter's change management framework. Barriers to student engagement were related to faculty (e.g. view student roles narrowly), students (e.g. fear change or expect faculty-led curricula), or both (e.g. lack leadership training). Activators were: (1) recruiting collaborative faculty, staff, and students; (2) broadening student leadership roles; (3) empowering student leaders; and (4) recognizing student successes.Conclusions: By applying these activators, medical schools can build robust student-faculty partnerships that maximize collaboration, moving students beyond passive educational consumption to change agency and curricular co-creation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged front-line clinical decision-making, leading to numerous published prognostic tools. However, few models have been prospectively validated and none report implementation in practice. Here, we use 3345 retrospective and 474 prospective hospitalizations to develop and validate a parsimonious model to identify patients with favorable outcomes within 96 h of a prediction, based on real-time lab values, vital signs, and oxygen support variables. In retrospective and prospective validation, the model achieves high average precision (88.6% 95% CI: [88.4-88.7] and 90.8% [90.8-90.8]) and discrimination (95.1% [95.1-95.2] and 86.8% [86.8-86.9]) respectively. We implemented and integrated the model into the EHR, achieving a positive predictive value of 93.3% with 41% sensitivity. Preliminary results suggest clinicians are adopting these scores into their clinical workflows.

PURPOSE:The extent of medical trainees' engagement in scholarly medical education publication is not well described. This study sought to quantify the prevalence of medical student- and resident-authored medical education publications over 15 years, a benchmark essential for understanding current and future trends in trainee scholarship. METHOD:Of 91 identified journals, 16 met inclusion criteria as indexed general medical education journals. Only Academic Medicine provided complete author role information, allowing identification of medical student and resident authors. The authors retrospectively compiled and analyzed citation records from Academic Medicine from 2002 to 2016, tracking trainee authorship, author position, and publication type. RESULTS:A total of 6,280 publications were identified, of which 4,635 publications, by 16,068 authors, met inclusion criteria. Trainees were 6.0% (966/16,068) of all authors and authored 14.5% (673/4,635) of all publications. Trainee authorship rates varied by publication type: Trainees authored 33.3% (160/480) of medical humanities publications versus 6.9% (27/392) of commentaries. From 2002-2004 to 2014-2016, the proportion of authors who were trainees increased from 3.9% (73/1,853) to 7.1% (330/4,632) (P < .001 for trend). Over the same period, the percentage of trainee-authored publications increased: 9.4% (58/620) to 18.8% (225/1,199) (P < .001 for trend), driven primarily by increased trainee first authorship. CONCLUSIONS:Trainees constitute a small but growing proportion of authors and authored publications in Academic Medicine. Further work is needed to understand what trainee-, institutional-, and journal-level factors contribute to this trend, and whether similar increases in trainee authorship are occurring in other journals and fields.

INTRODUCTION:The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) are important for trainee medical knowledge assessment and licensure, medical school program assessment, and residency program applicant screening. Little is known about how USMLE performance varies between institutions. This observational study attempts to identify institutions with above-predicted USMLE performance, which may indicate educational programs successful at promoting students' medical knowledge. METHODS:Self-reported institution-level data was tabulated from publicly available US News and World Report and Association of American Medical Colleges publications for 131 US allopathic medical schools from 2012-2014. Bivariate and multiple linear regression were performed. The primary outcome was institutional mean USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores outside a 95% prediction interval (≥2 standard deviations above or below predicted) based on multiple regression accounting for students' prior academic performance. RESULTS:Eighty-nine US medical schools (54 public, 35 private) reported complete USMLE scores over the three-year study period, representing over 39,000 examinees. Institutional mean grade point average (GPA) and Medical College Admission Test score (MCAT) achieved an adjusted R2 of 72% for Step 1 (standardized βMCAT 0.7, βGPA 0.2) and 41% for Step 2 CK (standardized βMCAT 0.5, βGPA 0.3) in multiple regression. Using this regression model, 5 institutions were identified with above-predicted institutional USMLE performance, while 3 institutions had below-predicted performance. CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory study identified several US allopathic medical schools with significant above- or below-predicted USMLE performance. Although limited by self-reported data, the findings raise questions about inter-institutional USMLE performance parity, and thus, educational parity. Additional work is needed to determine the etiology and robustness of the observed performance differences.

New instructional technologies have been increasingly incorporated into the medical school learning environment, including lecture video recordings as a substitute for live lecture attendance. The literature presents varying conclusions regarding how this alternative experience impacts students' academic success. Previously, a multi-year study of the first-year medical histology component at the University of Michigan found that live lecture attendance was positively correlated with learning success, while lecture video use was negatively correlated. Here, three cohorts of first-year medical students (N = 439 respondents, 86.6% response rate) were surveyed in greater detail regarding lecture attendance and video usage, focusing on study behaviors that may influence histology learning outcomes. Students who reported always attending lectures or viewing lecture videos had higher average histology scores than students who employed an inconsistent strategy (i.e., mixing live attendance and video lectures). Several behaviors were negatively associated with histology performance. Students who engaged in "non-lecture activities" (e.g., social media use), students who reported being interrupted while watching the lecture video, or feeling sleepy/losing focus had lower scores than their counterparts not engaging in these behaviors. This study suggests that interruptions and distractions during medical learning activities-whether live or recorded-can have an important impact on learning outcomes. Anat Sci Educ 11: 366-376. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

PURPOSE:To determine medical students' study behaviors when preparing for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1, and how these behaviors are associated with Step 1 scores when controlling for likely covariates. METHOD:The authors distributed a study-behaviors survey in 2014 and 2015 at their institution to two cohorts of medical students who had recently taken Step 1. Demographic and academic data were linked to responses. Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and multiple linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:Of 332 medical students, 274 (82.5%) participated. Most students (n = 211; 77.0%) began studying for Step 1 during their preclinical curriculum, increasing their intensity during a protected study period during which they averaged 11.0 hours studying per day (standard deviation [SD] 2.1) over a period of 35.3 days (SD 6.2). Students used numerous third-party resources, including reading an exam-specific 700-page review book on average 2.1 times (SD 0.8) and completing an average of 3,597 practice multiple-choice questions (SD 1,611). Initiating study prior to the designated study period, increased review book usage, and attempting more practice questions were all associated with higher Step 1 scores, even when controlling for Medical College Admission Test scores, preclinical exam performance, and self-identified score goal (adjusted R = 0.56, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Medical students at one public institution engaged in a self-directed, "parallel" Step 1 curriculum using third-party study resources. Several study behaviors were associated with improved USMLE Step 1 performance, informing both institutional- and student-directed preparation for this high-stakes exam.

Learners are a pillar of academic medicine, yet their voice is seldom heard in national and international scholarly conversations on medical education. However, learners are eager to contribute: in response to a recent open call from Academic Medicine, medical students and residents representing 98 institutions across 11 countries submitted 224 Letters to the Editor on wide-ranging topics. In this Invited Commentary, the authors-three medical students serving in national leadership roles-contextualize several themes discussed in these learner-authored letters.The authors first explore the unique voice learners contribute to educational innovation, highlighting the value learners add to curricular and systemic educational reform efforts. They then turn to the broader implications of the many submitted letters addressing the culture and humanism of medicine, proposing that learners can be powerful catalysts and partners in cultural change. Despite these benefits, the authors note that learners are largely untapped change agents who are particularly underrepresented in medical education scholarship, finding that students were just 2.8% (39/1,396) of authors and 3.5% (12/340) of first authors among all print publications in Academic Medicine in 2016. The authors conclude by offering tangible steps for the academic medical community to engage learners in leadership, advocacy, and scholarship.

PURPOSE:Scholarly concentration programs-also known as scholarly projects, pathways, tracks, or pursuits-are increasingly common in U.S. medical schools. However, systematic, data-driven program development methods have not been described. METHOD:The authors examined scholarly concentration programs at U.S. medical schools that U.S. News & World Report ranked as top 25 for research or primary care (n = 43 institutions), coding concentrations and mission statements. Subsequently, the authors conducted a targeted needs assessment via a student-led, institution-wide survey, eliciting learners' preferences for 10 "Pathways" (i.e., concentrations) and 30 "Topics" (i.e., potential content) augmenting core curricula at their institution. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a capacity optimization algorithm characterized best institutional options for learner-focused Pathway development. RESULTS:The authors identified scholarly concentration programs at 32 of 43 medical schools (74%), comprising 199 distinct concentrations (mean concentrations per program: 6.2, mode: 5, range: 1-16). Thematic analysis identified 10 content domains; most common were "Global/Public Health" (30 institutions; 94%) and "Clinical/Translational Research" (26 institutions; 81%). The institutional needs assessment (n = 468 medical students; response rate 60% overall, 97% among first-year students) demonstrated myriad student preferences for Pathways and Topics. EFA of Topic preferences identified eight factors, systematically related to Pathway preferences, informing content development. Capacity modeling indicated that offering six Pathways could guarantee 95% of first-year students (162/171) their first- or second-choice Pathway. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates a generalizable, data-driven approach to scholarly concentration program development that reflects student preferences and institutional strengths, while optimizing program diversity within capacity constraints.