ArticleSouthern medical journal2023
Identifying Gender-Related Differences in Graduate Medical Education with the Use of a Web-Based Professionalism Monitoring Tool.
Article in Southern medical journal, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMedical education is required to ensure a healthy training and learning environment for resident physicians. Trainees are expected to demonstrate professionalism with patients, faculty, and staff. West Virginia University Graduate Medical Education (GME) initiated a Web-based professionalism and mistreatment form ("button") on our Web site for reporting professionalism breaches, mistreatment, and exemplary behavior events. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics in resident trainees who had a "button push" activation about their behavior to better understand ways to improve professionalism in GME.
methodsThis West Virginia University institutional review board-approved quality improvement study is a descriptive analysis of GME button push activations from July 2013 through June 2021. We compared characteristics of all of those trainees who had specific button activation(s) about their behavior. Data are reported as frequency and percentage. Nominal data and interval data were analyzed using the χ
resultsIn the 8-year study period, there were 598 button activations, and 54% (n = 324) of the activations were anonymous. Nearly all of the button reports (n = 586, 98%) were constructively resolved within 14 days. Of the 598 button activations, 95% (n = 569) were identified as involving one sex, with 66.3% (n = 377) identified as men and 33.7% (n = 192) as women. Of the 598 activations, 83.7% (n = 500) involved residents and 16.3% (n = 98) involved attendings. One-time offenders comprised 90% (n = 538), and 10% (n = 60) involved individuals who had previous button pushes about their behavior.
conclusionsImplementation of a professionalism-monitoring tool, such as our Web-based button push, identified gender differences in the reporting of professionalism breaches, because twice as many men as women were identified as the instigator of a professionalism breech. The tool also facilitated timely interventions and exemplary behavior recognition.
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.