Equity, diversity, and exclusion? A national mixed methods study of "belonging" in Canadian undergraduate medical education.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion remain a prominent focus in medical schools, yet the phenomenon of "belonging" has arguably been overlooked. Little is known regarding how belonging is experienced by medical students from groups that face systemic oppression and exclusion. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed methods design to explore how students from equity-deserving groups (EDGs) experience belonging during medical school, including those who are women, racialized, Indigenous, disabled, and 2SLGBTQIA+. First, we conducted a national cross-sectional survey of medical students (N = 480) measuring four constructs: belonging, imposter syndrome, burnout, and depression. Belonging scores were overall lower for students from EDGs and, more specifically, significantly lowest amongst racialized students. Structural equation models show that poor sense of belonging precedes imposter syndrome and further exacerbates burnout and depression. Next, we sampled and interviewed students (N = 16) from the EDG whose belonging scores were significantly lowest. Participants described the essence of belonging as being able to exist as one's "true self" while emphasizing feelings of acceptance, comfort, and safety as well as being valued and seen as an equal - yet described how routine experiences of "othering" inhibited a sense of belonging, often due to differences in social identity and structural privilege. Poor sense of belonging negatively affected learners' well-being and career trajectory. We illuminate the range of psychological and professional consequences associated with diminished sense of belonging and highlight the need to expand traditional notions of equity, diversity, and inclusion to consider structural barriers to belonging.

Healthcare Providers' Perceptions of Single-Room Versus Traditional Maternity Models: A Concurrent Mixed-Methods Study.

While many hospitals have transitioned from traditional maternity care to a single-room maternity model, little is known about how healthcare providers' practice differs between the models. This mixed-methods study compared healthcare providers' job satisfaction and team collaboration between traditional and single-room maternity care and explored how each model shaped providers' practice. Data were collected via questionnaires and interviews with healthcare providers from 2 hospitals. Independent t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and thematic analysis were used in analysis; findings were then triangulated. No difference was found in team collaboration and job satisfaction scores between single-room (n = 84) and traditional (n = 42) maternity care; however, providers described different means toward satisfaction and collaboration in the interviews (n = 18). Single-room maternity care providers valued interprofessional teamwork, patient/family involvement, and continuity of care. Traditional maternity care providers enjoyed specialization but described teamwork as uniprofessional and disconnected across professions; transfers between units weakened communication and fragmented care. While single-room maternity care providers described less tension and a more holistic patient-family journey, further research must be undertaken to examine whether and how interprofessional collaboration and communication impact patient and health system outcomes.

Longitudinal Changes in Cognitive Test Scores in Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: An Analysis of the DECIDE Dataset.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognitive impairment is a common and impactful symptom of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Cognitive outcome measures are often used in cross-sectional studies, but their performance as longitudinal outcome measures in clinical trials is not widely researched. In this study, we used data from a large clinical trial to describe change on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) and the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) over up to 144 weeks of follow-up. METHODS: We used the data set from DECIDE (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01064401), a large randomized controlled RRMS trial to describe change on the SDMT and PASAT over 144 weeks of follow-up. We compared change on these cognitive outcomes with change on the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), a well-established physical outcome measure. We investigated several definitions for clinically meaningful change: any change, 4-point change, 8-point change, and 20% change for the SDMT, any change, 4-point change, and 20% change for the PASAT, and 20% change for the T25FW. RESULTS: DECIDE included 1,814 trial participants. SDMT and PASAT scores steadily improved throughout follow-up: the SDMT from a mean 48.2 (SD, 16.1) points at baseline to 52.6 (SD 15.2) at 144 weeks and the PASAT from 47.0 (SD 11.3) at baseline to 50.0 (SD 10.8) at 144 weeks. This improvement in scores is most likely due to a practice effect. Throughout the trial, participants were more likely to experience improvement than worsening of their SDMT and PASAT performance, whereas the number of worsening events on the T25FW steadily increased. Changing the definition of clinically meaningful change for the SDMT and PASAT or using a 6-month confirmation changed the overall number of worsening or improvement events but did not affect the overall behavior of these measures. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the SDMT and PASAT scores do not accurately reflect the steady cognitive decline that people with RRMS experience. Both outcomes show postbaseline increases in scores, which complicates the interpretation of these outcome measures in clinical trials. More research into the size of these changes is needed before recommending a general threshold for clinically meaningful longitudinal change.