Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32904850›Full record

ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2020

Do Interest Groups Cultivate Interest? Trajectories of Geriatric Interest Group Members.

Andrew Perrella, Ari B Cuperfain, Amanda B Canfield, Tricia Woo, Camilla L Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrew PerrellaDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Ari B CuperfainDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Amanda B CanfieldDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Tricia WooDepartment of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Camilla L WongDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimal exposure, misconceptions, and lack of interest have historically driven the shortage of health-care providers for older adults. This study aimed to determine how medical students' participation in the National Geriatrics Interest Group (NGIG) and local Geriatrics Interest Groups (GIGs) shapes their career development in the care of older adults.

methodsAn electronic survey consisting of quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess the influence of Interest Groups was distributed to all current and past members of local GIGs at Canadian universities since 2017, as well as current and past executives of the NGIG since 2011. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were performed.

resultsThirty-one responses (27.7% response rate) were collected from medical students (13), residents (16), and physicians (2). 79% of resident respondents indicated they will likely have a geriatrics-focused medical practice. 45% of respondents indicated GIG/NGIG involvement facilitated the establishment of strong mentorship. Several themes emerged on how GIG/NGIG promoted interest in geriatrics: faculty mentorship, networking, dispelling stigma, and career advancement.

conclusionThe positive associations with the development of geriatrics-focused careers and mentorship compel ongoing support for these organizations as a strategy to increase the number of physicians in geriatrics-related practices.

Indexed as

geriatricsinterest groupmedical educationmedical studentsmentorship

Identifiers

PMID32904850
PMCPMC7458595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.