Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357319›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2022

Technology Literacy in Undergraduate Medical Education: Review and Survey of the US Medical School Innovation and Technology Programs.

Judy Jiaqi Wang, Rishabh K Singh, Heather Hough Miselis, Stephanie Nicole Stapleton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  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.

Judy Jiaqi WangDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4905-6593
Rishabh K SinghDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1616-8396
Heather Hough MiselisDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9861-645X
Stephanie Nicole StapletonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1943

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern innovations, like machine learning, genomics, and digital health, are being integrated into medical practice at a rapid pace. Physicians in training receive little exposure to the implications, drawbacks, and methodologies of upcoming technologies prior to their deployment. As a result, there is an increasing need for the incorporation of innovation and technology (I&T) training, starting in medical school.

objectiveWe aimed to identify and describe curricular and extracurricular opportunities for innovation in medical technology in US undergraduate medical education to highlight challenges and develop insights for future directions of program development.

methodsA review of publicly available I&T program information on the official websites of US allopathic medical schools was conducted in June 2020. Programs were categorized by structure and implementation. The geographic distribution of these categories across US regions was analyzed. A survey was administered to school-affiliated student organizations with a focus on I&T and publicly available contact information. The data collected included the founding year, thematic focus, target audience, activities offered, and participant turnout rate.

resultsA total of 103 I&T opportunities at 69 distinct Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited medical schools were identified and characterized into the following six categories: (1) integrative 4-year curricula, (2) facilitated doctor of medicine/master of science dual degree programs in a related field, (3) interdisciplinary collaborations, (4) areas of concentration, (5) preclinical electives, and (6) student-run clubs. The presence of interdisciplinary collaboration is significantly associated with the presence of student-led initiatives (P=.001). "Starting and running a business in healthcare" and "medical devices" were the most popular thematic focuses of student-led I&T groups, representing 87% (13/15) and 80% (12/15) of respondents, respectively. "Career pathways exploration for students" was the only type of activity that was significantly associated with a high event turnout rate of >26 students per event (P=.03).

conclusionsExisting school-led and student-driven opportunities in medical I&T indicate growing national interest and reflect challenges in implementation. The greater visibility of opportunities, collaboration among schools, and development of a centralized network can be considered to better prepare students for the changing landscape of medical practice.

Indexed as

curricular developmentmedical innovationmedical technologystudent engagement

Identifiers

PMID35357319
PMCPMC9015763

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.