Parenthood During Graduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review

Stack, Shobha W.; Eurich, Katrin; Kaplan, Elizabeth; Ball, Andrea L.; Mookherjee, Somnath; Best, Jennifer A.

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002948

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 101 studies (See Appendix for a diagram of the inclusion process) 18‐118 . On average 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4, range 0‐42) were published annually (See Appendix ) with the most published in 2019 (n = 42; 41.6%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical Teacher did not publish any scoping reviews during this time period. Thirty‐eight scoping reviews (37.6%) 19,26,28,34,38,40,41,44,49,51,53,58,60,62,65,66,70,72‐75,87,88,90,92,96,97,100‐102,105,106,109,110,112,117 reported funding that supported the work with nearly half (39.5%) 41,44,49,70,72,73,75,87,88,90,92,100,101,105,115 of those funded receiving public funds. All reviews synthesised journal articles, with 28.7% (n = 29) also including book chapters, grey literature, dissertations, websites, posters and conference proceedings 19,23,30,31,34,38‐40,42,51,56,57,59,61,63,64,71,75,76,88,92,93,95,99,104,106,108,114,117 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18,19 Larger studies of parental leave policies across multiple specialties and institutions have similarly described a lack of standardized/formal GME parental leave policy across specialties and lack of specific references about the impact of parental leave on clinical training (length and eligibility for specialty boards). 6,[20][21][22] While it has been established that parenthood during GME is an important component of trainee well-being, 23 specific barriers to implementation of standardized policies that have been identified include: stigma, financial concerns, workforce and duty hour challenges, as well as the rigidly specified timeline of progression from one stage of medical training to the next. 24 Our study offers not only confirmation of the limited current parental leave policies available to subspecialty trainees similar to what has previously been described, but also offers new insight into trainees interest in additions and modifications to existing policy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental health in fellowship trainees: Fellows’ satisfaction with current policies and interest in innovation

Marshall

Dines

Hendrickson

et al. 2020

Womens Health (Lond Engl)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Parenthood during medical training is common and impacts trainee well-being. However, current graduate medical education parental health policies are often limited in scope. We explored current fellowship trainees’ knowledge of/satisfaction with current policies as well as interest in potential changes/additions to existing policies. Methods: Fellowship program directors/coordinators at a three-site academic institution were surveyed and information was collected from 2015 to 2019 regarding fellow demographics and parental health policies. We distributed an electronic survey to fellows containing Likert-type-scale questions rating knowledge/level of satisfaction with current parental health policies and interest in potential additions/modifications to current policies. Results: Thirty-five of 47 (74%) fellowship programs responded. An average of 11% of female fellows and 15% of male fellows took parental leave during the study period. Three (9%) of the programs had at least one additional parental health policy beyond institutional graduate medical education policies. In the fellow survey, 175 of 609 fellows responded (28.7%), of which 84 (48.6%) were female. Although 89.1% agreed/strongly agreed that parental health is an important part of health and well-being for fellows, only 32% were satisfied/very satisfied with current policies (no significant sex-related differences). Fellows reported the following potential interventions as important/very important: 79.2% increased (paid) maternity leave (72.7% male, 86.7% female, p = 0.02), 78% increased (paid) paternity leave (76.4% male, 81.9% female, p = 0.37), 72.3% part-time return to work (60.2% male, 84.3% female, p = 0.0005), 63% coverage for workup/management of infertility (52.3% male, 74.7% female, p = 0.002), and 79.9% on-site day care (70.7% male, 89.2% female, p = 0.003). Conclusions: Parental health includes multiple domains, not all of which are covered by current policies. Fellows feel that parental health is an important part of overall health and well-being, but most are not satisfied with current policies. Expanded access to parental leave and new policies (part-time return to work, infertility management, and on-site day care) are opportunities for innovation.

show abstract

“…For example, authors of a scoping review on parenthood in residency noted that they "had knowledge and experience of parenthood during GME (JAB, SWS), literature reviews (ALB, KEE, SM), and information management and retrieval (ALB)". 21 Eight studies (7.9%) were led by doctoral students in health professions education. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Scoping reviews with available citation data (n=89) were cited, on average, 6.37 times (SD=11.67, MED=2, Range 0-61).…”

Section: Figure 1: Flow Diagram Of Study Inclusion Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Maggio

Larsen

Costello

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the extent, range, and nature of scoping reviews published in core medical education journals. In so doing, the authors identify areas for improvement in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, and highlight opportunities for future research.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1999 through April 2020 in 14 medical education journals. From each review, the authors extracted and summarized key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions, and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Rationales and research questions were mapped to the reasons for conducting a scoping review, as described by Arksey and O’Malley.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average 10.1 scoping reviews (MED=4, SD=13.08) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n=42) in 13 of the included 14 journals reviewed. Academic Medicine published the most scoping reviews (n=28) overall. Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, including to: summarize and disseminate research findings (n=77); examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n=74); and to analyze an emerging topic or heterogenous literature base (n=46). In 11 reviews there was alignment between the rationales for the scoping review and the stated research questions. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with only a minority of authors publishing a protocol (n=2) or including stakeholders (n=20). Authors identified several shortcomings of scoping review methodology, including being unable to critically assess the included studies.ConclusionsMedical educators are increasingly conducting scoping reviews with a desire to characterize the literature on a topic. There is room for improvement in the reporting of scoping reviews, including the alignment of research questions, the creation and publishing of protocols, and the inclusion of external stakeholders in published works.

show abstract

Parenthood During Graduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review

Cited by 38 publications

References 83 publications

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Parental health in fellowship trainees: Fellows’ satisfaction with current policies and interest in innovation

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About