Radiology Exposure in the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Medical Student Perspective on Quality and Opportunities for Positive Change.

PURPOSE: This article is a continuation of a qualitative study designed to explore how radiology exposures can impact medical student opinions and perceptions of radiology and radiologists. We focused on: 1) conducting a radiology exposure inventory from the perspective of the medical student; 2) student evaluation of the quality of the radiology exposures and suggestions for positive change; and 3) development of a framework to address the needs of medical students as it relates to radiology education in the undergraduate medical curriculum. METHODS: Research methodology and design for this qualitative study were described in detail in a previous article by Visscher et al [1]. RESULTS: Participants included 28 medical students; 18 were in medical school years 1 and 2 (preclerkship), and 10 were in years 3 and 4 (clerkship). Specific to the focus of this article, the data revealed 3 major findings: 1) multiple exposures to radiology exist, and they are received and valued differently depending on the medical student's stage of professional development; 2) medical students value radiology education and want their radiology exposure to be comprehensive and high quality; 3) Medical students have constructive suggestions for improving the quality of both formal and informal radiology exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a radiology exposure inventory from a medical student perspective is a useful way to explore how students receive and value radiology instruction. Medical students want a more comprehensive radiology education that can be summarized using the 5 C's of Radiology Education framework. The 5 C's (curriculum, coaching, collaborating, career and commitment) reflect medical students' desires to learn content that will support them in clinical practice, be supported in their professional development, and have the necessary information to make informed career decisions.

Women in Radiology: Exploring the Gender Disparity.

PURPOSE: In 2015, only 1.5% of female Canadian medical students pursued radiology as a specialty, versus 5.6% of men. The aim of this study was to determine what factors attract and deter Canadian medical students from pursuing a career in radiology, and why fewer women than men pursue radiology as a specialty. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was e-mailed to English-speaking Canadian medical schools, and 12 of 14 schools participated. Subgroup analyses for gender and radiology interest were performed using the Fisher exact test (P < .05). RESULTS: In total, 917 students (514 women; 403 men) responded. Direct patient contact was valued by significantly more women who were not considering specialization in radiology (87%), compared with women who were (70%; P < .0001). Physics deterred more women (47%) than it did men (21%), despite similar educational backgrounds for the two gender groups in physical sciences (P < .0001). More women who were considering radiology as a specialty rated intellectual stimulation as being important to their career choice (93%), compared with women who were not (80%; P = .002). Fewer women who were not interested in radiology had done preclinical observerships in radiology (20%), compared with men who were not interested in radiology (28%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: A perceived lack of direct patient contact dissuades medical students from pursuing radiology as a career. Women have less preclinical radiology exposure than do men. Programs that increase preclinical exposure to radiology subspecialties that have greater patient contact should be initiated, and an effort to actively recruit women to such programs should be made.