IntroductionChoosing a residency program is a stressful and important decision. Doximity released residency program rankings by specialty in September 2014. This study sought to investigate the impact of those rankings on residency application choices made by fourth year medical students.MethodsA 12-item survey was administered in October 2014 to fourth year medical students at three schools. Students indicated their specialty, awareness of and perceived accuracy of the rankings, and the rankings’ impact on the programs to which they chose to apply. Descriptive statistics were reported for all students and those applying to Emergency Medicine (EM).ResultsA total of 461 (75.8%) students responded, with 425 applying in one of the 20 Doximity ranked specialties. Of the 425, 247 (58%) were aware of the rankings and 177 looked at them. On a 1–100 scale (100=very accurate), students reported a mean ranking accuracy rating of 56.7 (SD 20.3). Forty-five percent of students who looked at the rankings modified the number of programs to which they applied. The majority added programs. Of the 47 students applying to EM, 18 looked at the rankings and 33% changed their application list with most adding programs.ConclusionThe Doximity rankings had real effects on students applying to residencies as almost half of students who looked at the rankings modified their program list. Additionally, students found the rankings to be moderately accurate. Graduating students might benefit from emphasis on more objective characterization of programs to assess in light of their own interests and personal/career goals.
Advanced anatomy courses that integrate anatomical education with clinical reasoning are important curricular innovations that are popular with students and lead to important improvements in anatomical knowledge. Anatomists can lead the charge for better integration of basic sciences into senior medical school curricula.
Background: Food pantries are a significant nutrition source for food-insecure households. Traffic-light labeling is a new strategy in some pantries to help clients and staff identify healthier food choices. Healthy Pantry Program (HPP) is an online training designed by The Greater Boston Food Bank (GBFB) to teach staff of its affiliated pantries how to promote healthier choices by implementing traffic-light labels using Supporting Wellness at Pantries and behavioral nudges, such as placing healthy foods at eye level. Our academic research team partnered with GBFB to evaluate HPP by assessing if food pantries that participated in HPP increased their GBFB purchases of healthier (green and yellow) foods more than matched control pantries. Methods: We conducted an observational study of 107 food pantries in the GBFB network in eastern Massachusetts, including 10 pantries that completed HPP training and 97 control pantries matched by organizational characteristics and baseline food purchases. Five HPP pantries participated during Wave 1 (Oct 2018-Jan 2019), and 5 participated during Wave 2 (May 2019-Aug 2019). Outcomes were changes in percentage of pantries’ monthly green and yellow purchases from GBFB at 6-month (Waves 1 and 2) and 12-month (Wave 1 only) follow-ups compared to baseline purchases (6 months pre-HPP). We used a difference-in-differences analysis to examine whether HPP pantries increased green-yellow food purchases more than control pantries. Results: In Wave 1, HPP pantries had small but nonsignificant increases in green-yellow purchases at 6 and 12 months compared to matched controls (Table). In Wave 2, HPP and control pantries had similar increases in green-yellow purchases at 6 months. Conclusions: An online training implemented by a food bank to improve healthy choices in food pantries did not significantly improve pantries’ purchases of healthier foods. Academic-community organization partnerships to evaluate health promotion initiatives can help guide effective program design and development.
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.