ArticleCureus2024
Perceptions of X+Y Scheduling Among Combined Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Residency Trainees: A Qualitative Program Evaluation.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aims to elicit perceived benefits and downsides of X+Y scheduling for combined Internal Medicine-Pediatrics (Med-Peds) residents via focus groups.
methodsFive focus groups were conducted with Med-Peds residents in participating programs which utilized X+Y scheduling. Onefocus group was held per participating institution. Each focus group was facilitated by a chief resident from a different participating institution. Questions were developed by the study team after a review of the literature and local experience with X+Y scheduling and included open-ended questions. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were reviewed by study team members, and representative themes and quotes were presented. The main outcome was to evaluate the perceived benefits and downsides of X+Y scheduling for Med-Peds.
resultsResults from four of the five focus groups were fully reviewed. Themes regarding the benefits of X+Y scheduling included (1) improved inpatient and outpatient experience, (2) predictability in schedule which improved wellness, and (3) longitudinal time for career exploration. Downsides of X+Y scheduling were highlighted as well including (1) condensing too many experiences into Y time and (2) challenges that exist when categorical medicine and pediatrics programs use different block schedules.
conclusionsX+Y schedules create potential solutions for longstanding barriers to medical education and notably conflict with inpatient and outpatient responsibilities. Our data shows similar benefits to X+Y scheduling for combined residents as for their categorical colleagues and sheds light on some unique considerations for combined programs and trainees. Additional studies should continue to assess the effect of X+Y scheduling on our combined trainees.
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.