ArticleMedical science educator2021
Exploring Careers in Medicine: Implementation and Perceived Value of a Multi-Specialty Elective.
Article in Medical science educator, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChoosing a medical specialty is one of the most crucial and difficult decisions made during medical school. Given that specialty exposure is among the most important factors in decision-making, the Careers in Medicine (CiM) multi-specialty elective was designed to provide clerkship students an avenue to explore three or more specialties of interest during a single elective.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine using anonymous surveys and de-identified written reflections submitted by students enrolled in the CiM course between August 2015 and June 2018. Data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach.
resultsThe majority of students reported the elective guided them in ruling out (80%) and ruling in (65%) specialties. About half (51%) of students decided between the procedural versus critical-thinking dichotomy. Finally, 80% of students reported that they would take the course again rather than a focused elective. Major themes identified from student reflections included course attributes, specialty impacts, and student values. DISCUSSION: Implementation of a multi-specialty elective during the clerkship year was an effective way to help students understand their career values, gain early exposure to specialties not featured in core clinical curriculums, and determine future fields of interest. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01311-0.
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.