ArticleMedical education2021
Effects of raising the bar on medical student study progress: An intersectional approach.
Article in Medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The added value of free preparatory activities for widening access to medical education: a multi-cohort study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Medical students' perception of general practice: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Effects of raising the bar on medical student study progress: An intersectional approach.Medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMedical schools seek for measures to improve their students' study progress and are responsible for a diverse student population.
objectivesThe effect of a stricter academic dismissal (AD) policy in medical school on short-term and long-term study progress was investigated in a longitudinal cohort study. In addition, differential effects for subgroups were assessed by intersecting gender, ethnicity and prior education (intersectional framework).
methodsParticipants were first-year Bachelor students enrolled in 2011 to 2016 in a Dutch medical school. For cohorts 2011-2013, the AD policy consisted of a minimum of 67% of Year-1 credits required to remain enrolled (67%-policy, n = 1189), and for cohorts 2014-2016, this bar was raised to 100% of Year-1 credits (100%-policy, n = 1233). Outcome measures on study progress were Year-1 completion and dropout (short term) and Bachelor completion in three and four years (long term).
resultsOverall, Year-1 completion rates increased under the 100%-policy compared to the 67%-policy (OR = 2.50, 95%-CI:2.06-3.03, P < .001). Yet, this increase was not present for students with non-standard prior education - except for males with a migration background (OR = 7.19, 95%-CI:2.33-25.73, P < .01). The dropout rate doubled under the 100%-policy (OR = 2.41, 95%-CI:1.68-3.53, P < .001). Mainly students with standard prior education dropped out more often (OR = 3.68, 95%-CI:2.37-5.89, P < .001), except for males with a migration background. Bachelor completion rates after three and four years were not positively affected by the 100%-policy. Notably, females without a migration background and with non-standard prior education suffered from the 100%-policy regarding Bachelor completion after three years (OR = 0.29, 95%-CI:0.11-0.76, P < .05).
conclusionsDespite increased dropout rates, the stricter AD policy improved Year-1 completion rates - especially for under-represented subgroups, thereby improving study progress without harming student diversity on the short term. However, these positive effects did not hold regarding Bachelor completion rates indicating that long-term effects require higher performance standards throughout the Bachelor, which in turn may harm other subgroups and thereby student diversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.