Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34174871›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Student-run free clinic volunteers: who they are and what we can learn from them.

Fadi W Adel, Ruth E Berggren, Robert M Esterl, John T Ratelle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fadi W AdelDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Minnesota, 55905, Rochester, United States of America. Adel.Fadi@Mayo.edu.
Ruth E BerggrenThe Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics, The Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
Robert M EsterlThe Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics, The Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
John T RatelleDivision of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America.
Mayo Clinic · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

Kronkosky Charitable Foundation Kronkosky Charitable FoundationThe Greehey Family Foundation The Greehey Family Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInitiatives employing medical students' volunteerism and idealism, such as the Student-Run Free Clinics (SRFC) program, are prevalent in US medical schools. Many studies evaluated various aspects of volunteering, sometimes resulting in conflicting evidence. This study simultaneously sought to identify the characteristics of volunteers vs. non-volunteers, and to characterize the volunteers' perception of the SRFC.

methodsWe administered a survey to the Long School of Medicine (LSOM) Class of 2018 before their third year of medical school. The authors compared and contrasted the findings of the SRFC volunteers with their non-volunteering counterparts by analyzing their demographics, volunteering history, academic performance, and clinical skills. The volunteers were also asked about their SRFC experiences.

resultsWhile most volunteers were female (62 %) and non-traditional students (67 %), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.15 and p = 0.38, respectively). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in measures of academic performance (p = 0.25). Most of the volunteers learned about the SRFC program prior to starting medical school. Further, while SRFC volunteers were more likely to engage in additional local volunteering initiatives, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.03, prespecified  α= 0.006). Importantly, volunteers agreed/strongly agreed that SRFC volunteering emphasized aspects that were missing or underemphasized in the formal medical school curriculum.

conclusionsMedical students' age, gender, undergraduate major, and non-traditional status were not statistically different between volunteers vs. non-volunteers. However, there may be tendencies for volunteers to be female, non-traditional, and locally engaged. Further, the timing of knowledge of the SRFC program may not affect student involvement in the SRFC, either. Most importantly, however, while volunteering does not affect the students' academic performance, it may provide improvements in clinical competencies.

Indexed as

Student Run ClinicStudents, MedicalAmbulatory Care FacilitiesClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansVolunteersClinical SkillsMedical EducationStudent Run Free ClinicUnderservedVolunteers

Identifiers

PMID34174871
PMCPMC8236183
OpenAlexW3175250004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.