Impact of a Medical Scribe Program on the Educational Trajectory of Prehealth and Underrepresented in Medicine Students.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sparse research exists on evaluating the effects of medical scribing programs on the educational trajectory of prehealth students. This study assesses the impact of the Stanford Medical Scribe Fellowship (COMET) on its prehealth participants' educational goals, preparation for graduate training, and acceptance into health professional schools. METHODS: We distributed a 31-question survey with both closed- and open-ended questions to 96 alumni. The survey collected participant demographics, self-reported underrepresented in medicine (URM) status, pre-COMET clinical experiences and educational goals, application to and acceptance at health professional schools, and perceived impact of COMET on their educational trajectory. SPSS was used to complete the analyses. RESULTS: The survey had a 97% (93/96) completion rate. Among all respondents, 69% (64/93) applied to a health professional school and 70% (45/64) were accepted. Among URM respondents, 68% (23/34) applied to a health professional school and 70% (16/23) were accepted. Overall acceptance rates for MD/DO and PA/NP programs were 51% (24/47) and 61% (11/18), respectively. URM acceptance rates for MD/DO and PA/NP programs were 43% (3/7) and 58% (7/12), respectively. For current or recently graduated health professional school respondents, 97% (37/38) "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that COMET helped them succeed in their training. CONCLUSIONS: COMET is associated with a positive impact on the educational trajectory of its prehealth participants and a higher acceptance rate into health professional schools than the national rates for both overall and URM applicants. Scribing programs may serve as pipeline development and help increase the diversity of the future health care workforce.

Voice Assistants and Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant, and Cortana.

Despite increasing interest in how voice assistants like Siri or Alexa might improve health care delivery and information dissemination, there is limited research assessing the quality of health information provided by these technologies. Voice assistants present both opportunities and risks when facilitating searches for or answering health-related questions, especially now as fewer patients are seeing their physicians for preventive care due to the ongoing pandemic. In our study, we compared the 4 most widely used voice assistants (Amazon Alexa, Apple Siri, Google Assistant, and Microsoft Cortana) and their ability to understand and respond accurately to questions about cancer screening. We show that there are clear differences among the 4 voice assistants and that there is room for improvement across all assistants, particularly in their ability to provide accurate information verbally. In order to ensure that voice assistants provide accurate information about cancer screening and support, rather than undermine efforts to improve preventive care delivery and population health, we suggest that technology providers prioritize partnership with health professionals and organizations.