ArticleBMC medical education2024
Training the next generation of community-engaged physicians: a mixed-methods evaluation of a novel course for medical service learning in the COVID-19 era.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Case for an Updated Premedical Curriculum in the United States.Health and human rights · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from implementing health systems science and community service course for fourth-year medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Review
- Sustaining Community Engagement: Lessons Learned From Medical Education for Community-Academic Partnerships.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Building Capacity and Trust through Community Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Research in Health Equity Symposium.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical school curricula strive to train community-engaged and culturally competent physicians, and many use service learning to instill these values in students. The current standards for medical service learning frameworks have opportunities for improvement, such as encouraging students to have more sustainable and reciprocal impact and to ingrain service learning as a value to carry throughout their careers rather than a one-time experience. PEDS 220: A COVID-19 Elective is a Stanford University course on the frontlines of this shift; it provides timely education on the COVID-19 pandemic, integrating community-oriented public health work to help mitigate its impact.
methodsTo analyze our medical service learning curriculum, we combined qualitative and quantitative methods to understand our students' experiences. Participants completed the Course Experience Questionnaire via Qualtrics, and were invited to complete an additional interview via Zoom. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an interactive, inductive, and team-based codebook development process, where recurring themes were identified across participant interviews.
resultsWe demonstrate through self-determination theory that our novel curriculum gives students valuable leadership and project management experience, awards strong academic and community-based connections, and motivates them to pursue future community-engaged work.
conclusionsThis educational framework, revolving around students, communities, and diversity, can be used beyond the COVID-19 pandemic at other educational institutions to teach students how to solve other emergent global health problems. Using proven strategies that empower future physicians to view interdisciplinary, community-engaged work as a core pillar of their responsibility to their patients and communities ensures long-term, sustainable positive impact.
trial registrationN/A.
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.