Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39099855›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2024

Return on Investment of Three-Year Accelerated Programs for Students, Medical Schools, Departments, and Community.

Sally A Santen, Alicia Gonzalez-Flores, Catherine L Coe, Michael Partin, Judith M Brenner, Peter M Nalin, Allison A Macerollo, Joan Cangiarella, Arthur Saavedra, Shou Ling Leong

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Sally A SantenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0769, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0769 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8327-8002
Alicia Gonzalez-FloresDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA USA.
Catherine L CoeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Michael PartinDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7496-6604
Judith M BrennerNew York University Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8697-5401
Peter M NalinUniversity of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN USA.
Allison A MacerolloDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH USA.
Joan CangiarellaDepartment of Pathology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2432-5857
Arthur SaavedraVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA USA.
Shou Ling LeongDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2954-5381

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Building on the initial accelerated pathway programs in the 1970s to increase workforce, nearly 30 schools have launched accelerated 3-year pathways (A3YP) during the past decade. The authors based on their educational roles, experiences, and scholarship with A3YP provide this perspective of the argument for A3YP and potential disadvantages for each group-students, schools, residencies, departments, and community. When schools consider innovations, they might consider A3YPs for multiple reasons; this perspective helps provide justification for the program and broadly considers return on investment (ROI). The ROI for students includes decreased debt, reduced costs and stress associated with the fourth-year residency applications, and a directed pathway with facilitated transition into a residency program with accompanying professional identity development. Disadvantages for students include early specialty commitment, risk of deceleration, and condensed curriculum. The ROI for schools includes recruiting and retaining students, who will then transition more easily into residency and stimulating innovation. Residency programs gain residents with known skills, who have been a part of the department for 3 years. In addition, fewer residency slots for interviewing leads to saving recruitment administrative costs and time. Finally, many programs are intended to increase the workforce, since students who come to the region for medical school and transition directly into residency are likely to stay in the region. Disadvantages include increased curricular complexity for the medical school, increased administrative support, and advising resources. Finally, several of the accelerated programs attract matriculants from diverse backgrounds contributing to the diversity of the medical school, residency program, and community workforce.

Indexed as

Accelerated programsInnovationMedical schoolResidency

Identifiers

PMID39099855
PMCPMC11297223

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.