Background and Objectives: An adequate family medicine workforce is needed to improve health and health care outcomes in the United States, yet few medical students in the US become family physicians. Indicators of family medicine interest upon medical school matriculation exist. Family medicine interest groups (FMIGs) may influence student choice. This study examines the association of FMIG participation with various matriculation interest indicators to predict which students go on to become family physicians. Methods: The American Medical Association Masterfile was used to identify the practice specialty of 601 graduates of the University of Washington School of Medicine who matriculated between 2003 and 2007. Graduates’ scores on the Family Medicine Interest Survey (FMIS) and whether a student listed family medicine as their top choice upon matriculation along with FMIG participation and demographic characteristics were used in a binary logistic regression model to predict eventual practice. The model output was used to calculate odds ratios and predicted probabilities of family medicine practice given initial family medicine interest and FMIG participation. Results: FMIG participation was associated with higher odds ratios and increased predicted probability of becoming a family physician regardless of initial interest although the magnitude of the difference varied. FMIG participants who listed family medicine as their top specialty had a 68% predicted probability of entering family medicine compared to 8% probability if they did not list family medicine first and did not participate in FMIG. FMIG participation was associated with odds ratios between 3.27-4.19 for entering family medicine regardless of FMIS score. Conclusions: Among University of Washington students with family medicine as their top specialty choice upon matriculation, FMIG participation was associated with higher odds of entering the specialty. The same was true, although to a lesser degree, for students who had a high score on the FMIS.
Purpose: One aspect of the hidden curriculum of medicine is specialty disrespect (SD)—an expressed lack of respect among medical specialties that occurs at all levels of training and across geographic, demographic, and professional boundaries, with quantifiable impacts on student well-being and career decision making. This study sought to identify medical students’ perceptions of and responses to SD in the learning environment. Methods: We conducted quantitative and content analysis of an annual survey collected between 2008 and 2012 from 702 third- and fourth-year students at the University of Washington School of Medicine. We describe the frequency of reported SD, its self-rated impact on student specialty choice, and major descriptive categories. Results: Nearly 80% of respondents reported experiencing SD in the previous year. A moderate or strong impact on specialty choice was reported by 25.9% of respondents. In our sample, students matching into family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, and emergency medicine were most likely to report exposure. Content analysis identified two new concepts not previously reported. Internecine strife describes students distancing themselves from both disrespecting and disrespected specialties, while legitimacy questions the validity of the targeted specialty. Conclusions: SD is a consistent and ubiquitous part of clinical training that pushes students away from both disrespecting and disrespected specialties. These results emphasize the need for solutions aimed at minimizing disrespect and mitigating its effects upon students.
Background and Objectives: Representation of women in medicine is increasing, including in academic family medicine. Despite this, women continue to hold a minority of senior faculty and leadership roles. This study examines the trends of women first and senior authorship between 2002 and 2017 in five family medicine journals: Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician. The study also examines gender congruence between first and senior authors and women’s membership on editorial boards. Methods: We collected and analyzed data on a total of 1,671 original articles published in the five family medicine journals in 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. We also examined the gender composition of the journals’ editorial boards. Results: Overall, women first authorship increased significantly from 32.6% in 2002 to 47.7% in 2017. There was no significant difference in women senior authorship or editorial board representation from 2002 to 2017. Both men and women senior authors partnered with women first authors significantly more over the 15 years. Conclusions: While there was a statistically significant increase in women first authors between 2002 and 2017, there is still a gap between women’s authorship and editorial board representation and their representation within academic family medicine. These gaps could help to explain the continued lack of women represented within senior faculty positions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.