Challenges Facing First-Generation College Graduates in Medical School: A Qualitative Analysis.

Importance: First-generation (FG) medical students remain underrepresented in medicine despite ongoing national efforts to increase diversity; understanding the challenges faced by this student population is essential to building holistic policies, practices, and learning environments that promote professional actualization. Although FG students have been extensively studied in the undergraduate literature, there is little research investigating how FG students experience medical education or opportunities for educators to intervene. Objective: To explore challenges that FG students experience in undergraduate medical education and identify opportunities to improve foundational FG support. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted using an online platform with 37 FG students enrolled in 27 US medical schools. An interprofessional team of medical educators and trainees conducted semistructured interviews from November 2021 through April 2022. Participants were recruited using a medical student listserv. Data were analyzed from April to November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: After conducting a preliminary analysis using open coding, a codebook was created and used in a thematic analysis; the codebook used a combination of deductive and inductive coding. Results: Among the 37 students recruited for this study, 21 (56.8%) were female; 23 (62.2%) were in the clinical phase of training; 1 (2.7%) was American Indian or Alaska Native, 7 (18.9%) were Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin, 8 (21.6%) were non-Hispanic Asian or Asian American, 9 (24.3%) were non-Hispanic Black or African American, and 23 (32.4%) were non-Hispanic White; mean (SD) age was 27.3 (2.8) years. Participants described 4 major themes: (1) isolation and exclusion related to being a newcomer to medicine; (2) difficulty with access to basic resources (eg, food, rent, transportation) as well as educational (eg, books); (3) overall lack of faculty or institutional support to address these challenges; and (4) a sense of needing to rely on grit and resilience to survive. Conclusions and Relevance: Although grit and resilience are desirable traits, results of this study suggest that FG medical students face increased adversity with inadequate institutional support, which forces them to excessively rely on grit and resilience as survival (rather than educational) strategies. By applying the holistic model often used in admissions to the postmatriculation educational process, targeted and flexible initiatives can be created for FG students so that all students, regardless of background, can achieve robust professional actualization.

Perspectives on National Institutes of Health Funding Requirements for Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Medical Scientist Training Program Leadership.

Importance: Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. Objective: To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Results: The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

The Long Shadow: A Historical Perspective on Racism in Medical Education.

To dismantle racism in U.S. medical education, people must understand how the history of Christian Europe, Enlightenment-era racial science, colonization, slavery, and racism shaped modern American medicine. Beginning with the coalescence of Christian European identity and empire, the authors trace European racial reasoning through the racial science of the Enlightenment into the White supremacist and anti-Black ideology behind Europe's global system of racialized colonization and enslavement. The authors then follow this racist ideology as it becomes an organizing principle of Euro-American medicine and examine how it manifests in medical education in the United States today. Within this historical context, the authors expose the histories of violence underlying contemporary terms such as implicit bias and microaggressions. Through this history, they also gain a deeper appreciation of why racism is so prevalent in medical education and how it affects admissions, assessments, faculty and trainee diversity, retention, racial climate, and the physical environment. The authors then recommend 6 historically informed steps for confronting racism in medical education: (1) incorporate the history of racism into medical education and unmask institutional histories of racism, (2) create centralized reporting mechanisms and implement systematic reviews of bias in educational and clinical activities, (3) adopt mastery-based assessment in medical education, (4) embrace holistic review and expand its possibilities in admissions, (5) increase faculty diversity by using holistic review principles in hiring and promotions, and (6) leverage accreditation to combat bias in medical education. These strategies will help academic medicine begin to acknowledge the harms propagated throughout the history of racism in medicine and start taking meaningful steps to address them. Although the authors have focused on racism in this paper, they recognize there are many forms of bias that impact medical education and intersect with racism, each with its particular history, that deserve their own telling and redress.

Strategies and Best Practices to Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Among US Graduate Medical Education Programs.

Importance: Closing the diversity gap is critical to ensure equity in medical education and health care quality. Nevertheless, evidence-based strategies and best practices to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the biomedical workforce remain poorly understood and underused. To improve the culture of DEI in graduate medical education (GME), in 2020 the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched the Barbara Ross-Lee, DO, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Award to recognize exceptional DEI efforts in US residency programs. Objective: To identify strategies and best practices that exemplary US GME programs use to improve DEI. Design and Setting: This qualitative study performed an exploratory content analysis of award applications submitted to the ACGME over 2 cycles in 2020 and 2021, using the constant comparative method. The research team first acknowledged their own biases related to DEI, used caution to not overinterpret the data, and performed several cross-checks during data analysis to ensure confirmability of the results. A preliminary codebook was developed and used during regular adjudication sessions. Disagreements were discussed until agreements were reached. Main Outcomes and Measures: Foundational (ie, commonly cited, high-impact, and small-effort strategies considered achievable by all programs) and aspirational (ie, potential for high impact but requiring greater effort and investment) DEI strategies used by exemplary GME programs. Results: This qualitative study included 29 award applications submitted between August 17, 2020, and January 11, 2022. Strategies spanned the education continuum from premedical students through faculty. Foundational strategies included working with schools, community colleges, and 4-year college campuses; providing structured support for visiting students; mission-driven holistic review for admissions and selection; interviewer trainings on implicit bias mitigation and on how racism and discrimination impact admission processes and advancement; interview-day DEI strategies; inclusive selection and DEI committees; mission statements that include DEI; and retention efforts to improve faculty diversity. Aspirational strategies included development of longitudinal bidirectional collaborations (eg, articulation agreements, annual workshops, funded rotations and/or research) with organizations working with applicants who were historically excluded and underrepresented in medicine, blinding metrics in residency applications, longitudinal curricula on DEI and health equity, and faculty mentoring such as affinity groups, mentored research, and joint academic-community recruitments. Findings provide residency program leadership with a menu of options at various inflection points to foster DEI within their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that GME programs might adopt strategies of exemplary programs to improve DEI in residency, ensure compliance with accreditation standards, and improve health outcomes for all.

Medical Education's Wicked Problem: Achieving Equity in Assessment for Medical Learners.

Despite a lack of intent to discriminate, physicians educated in U.S. medical schools and residency programs often take actions that systematically disadvantage minority patients. The approach to assessment of learner performance in medical education can similarly disadvantage minority learners. The adoption of holistic admissions strategies to increase the diversity of medical training programs has not been accompanied by increases in diversity in honor societies, selective residency programs, medical specialties, and medical school faculty. These observations prompt justified concerns about structural and interpersonal bias in assessment. This manuscript characterizes equity in assessment as a "wicked problem" with inherent conflicts, uncertainty, dynamic tensions, and susceptibility to contextual influences. The authors review the underlying individual and structural causes of inequity in assessment. Using an organizational model, they propose strategies to achieve equity in assessment and drive institutional and systemic improvement based on clearly articulated principles. This model addresses the culture, systems, and assessment tools necessary to achieve equitable results that reflect stated principles. Three components of equity in assessment that can be measured and evaluated to confirm success include intrinsic equity (selection and design of assessment tools), contextual equity (the learning environment in which assessment occurs), and instrumental equity (uses of assessment data for learner advancement and selection and program evaluation). A research agenda to address these challenges and controversies and demonstrate reduction in bias and discrimination in medical education is presented.