Medical Student Perspectives on Sexual and Gender Minority Acceptance in Surgical Specialties and Sexual and Gender Minority Education.

BACKGROUND: The topics of healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) patients and inclusion of LGBTQ+ health providers remain overlooked. Some specialties may be perceived as less inclusive to LGBTQ+ trainees. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of current medical students regarding LGBTQ+ education and the acceptance of LGBTQ+ trainees among different specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional voluntary and anonymous online survey was distributed through REDCap to all medical students (n = 495) at a state medical school. Medical students' sexuality and gender identity were queried. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed, and the responses were classified into two groups: LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+. RESULTS: A total of 212 responses were queried. Of the respondents who agreed that certain specialties are less welcoming to LGBTQ+ trainees (n = 69, 39%), orthopedic surgery, general surgery and neurosurgery were identified most frequently (84%, 76%, and 55%, respectively). After analyzing sexual orientation as an influence on choosing a future specialty for residency, only 1% of non-LGBTQ+ students indicated that their sexual orientation influences their specialty of choice in comparison with 30% of LGBTQ+ students (P < 0.001). Finally, more non-LGBTQ+ students indicated that they believe they are receiving appropriate education on caring for LGBTQ+ patients as compared to LGBTQ+ students (71% and 55%, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQ+ students are still hesitant to pursue careers in General Surgery as compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers. The perception that surgical specialties are the least welcoming to LGBTQ+ students continues to be a concern for all students. Further strategies of inclusivity and their effectiveness need to be studied.

Medical student exam performance and perceptions of a COVID-19 pandemic-appropriate pre-clerkship medical physiology and pathophysiology curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools were compelled to abruptly transition pre-clerkship curricula to remote learning formats due to the emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We evaluated student perceptions of remote learning, exam performance, and utilization of third-party learning resources to assess the implementation of a newly developed pandemic-appropriate physiology curriculum. METHODS: This was an observational study based on a survey conducted in the Spring of 2021 at the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine (UCISOM). This study aimed to assess first (MS1) and second year (MS2) medical students' perceptions of satisfaction, support, academic performance, and connectedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The MS1 class began medical school during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the MS2 class did so prior to the start of the pandemic. A survey instrument was developed and validated to identify the impact remote learning had on student self-perceptions of the Medical Physiology and Pathophysiology course. Surveys were distributed to all students and responses were collected on a voluntary basis. Exam scores on a customized National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) physiology shelf exam were also compared to objectively identify how the remote curriculum during the pandemic impacted academic performance. RESULTS: Of 204 students enrolled, 74 responses were analyzed, with 42 MS1 (40% of MS1s) and 32 MS2 (31% of MS2s) responses. Overall, MS1s and MS2s were satisfied with the curriculum they received (95 and 97% respectively) and the school's support of their concerns (86 and 100% respectively). Notably, only 50% of MS1s felt connected to their peers, compared to 94% of MS2s. Lecture attendance and self-perception of their academic performance were similar between both classes. Interestingly, the intra-pandemic class's NBME exam average in 2020 (60.2% ± 8.9, n = 104) was significantly higher than the pre-pandemic class average in 2019 (56.8% ± 11.3, n = 100). Both classes primarily used course materials over third-party learning resources. An additional set of survey questions distributed only to the MS1 class found that the majority of MS1s reported minimal barriers with regards to accessibility, including internet connectivity, study-conducive environments, and balancing family commitments. Overall, pre-clerkship medical students had positive perceptions of the newly developed pandemic-appropriate physiology curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the pre-clerkship physiology curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic were met with overall satisfaction from the students and an increase in NBME scores. More attention to student connectedness is needed to improve how remote learning can be best optimized into future curricula development.

A Preference for Peers over Faculty in the Pandemic Era: Development and Evaluation of a Medical Student-led Virtual Physiology Exam Review.

In the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, students at the University of California, Irvine, reimagined their peer-led, small-group, tutorial sessions into an online format. The virtual sessions improved student-reported understanding of physiological principles and reduced exam anxiety. Peer-led review remains a valuable resource in the era of virtual medical education.

Risk Factors for Depression in Adolescents With ADHD: The Impact of Cognitive Biases and Stress.

Objective: Youth diagnosed with ADHD are at heightened risk of depression. However, many do not develop depression. Individuals with specific cognitive biases are more likely to develop depression yet it remains untested whether these vulnerability-stress models apply to depression risk in youth with ADHD. Method: We examined whether interpretation and attention biases moderated the relation between stressful life events and depressive symptoms in a sample of adolescents (Mage = 14.42) with ADHD (n = 59) and without ADHD (n = 36). Results: Youth with ADHD experienced more stressful life events compared with those without ADHD. Interpretation biases moderated the association between stress and depressive symptoms in youth with and without ADHD. Attention biases moderated the association between stress and depressive symptoms in the non-ADHD youth only. Conclusion: These results enhance our understanding of vulnerability for depression in adolescence with ADHD and inform targeted prevention and treatment models during this critical developmental juncture.