ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Qualitative Findings of a Nominal Group Process to Identify Critical Factors in New LIC Implementation.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMedical schools considering longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) have access to literature that provides recommendations for planning, implementation, and sustainability. However, LIC development and implementation remain notoriously challenging. University of Utah's LIC development process was informed by the documented experiences of long-established LIC programs. A literature gap was identified pertaining to more recently implemented LICs. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of faculty in the early stages of LIC development.
methodsThirteen representatives from eight LICs implemented after 2015 participated in 2 Zoom focus groups (5 participated in the first and the other 8 participated in the second). Participants were asked questions to assess key supports, barriers, and recommendations. Following the focus groups, participants were asked to rank the responses based on their level of importance.
resultsHighest ranked supports included stakeholder and partner involvement; a dedicated coordinator or team; and strong, committed leadership. Highest ranked barriers included difficulty recruiting preceptors and clinical sites; underestimation of the amount of work required to coordinate the LIC; and challenges in providing the needed faculty development. Top recommendations for new LICs included investing in the needs of clinical partners; staffing or assigning a dedicated coordinator early in the development and implementation process; and frequent communication with all stakeholders.
conclusionDespite variation among the types of new LICs represented, there was consensus among participants on the importance of key supports, barriers, and recommendations. Knowledge of these factors can help new schools plan and allocate resources during their LIC development process. Participants found the focus group process and follow-up discussions useful and have formed an ongoing workgroup which meets quarterly.
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.