What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Changes in Health Care Use Among Undocumented Patients, 2014-2018.

Importance: The 2016 presidential campaign was marked by intensified rhetoric around the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The association of such rhetoric with primary, emergency, and inpatient care among undocumented immigrants is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of increased anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 presidential campaign with health care use among a group of Medicaid-ineligible patients largely composed of undocumented immigrants. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a difference-in-differences (DID) approach, this cohort study analyzed health care use between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2018, in a retrospective cohort of Medicaid and Medicaid-ineligible (>90% undocumented) adult and pediatric patients. The inflection point of interest was June 16, 2015, the date of Donald Trump's announcement of candidacy, which represented a documented increase in anti-immigration rhetoric during the presidential campaign. Analyses were controlled for age, self-reported sex, and baseline comorbidities. Data analysis was conducted from August 28, 2018, to September 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The DID of the number of completed primary care encounters before and after June 16, 2015, in Medicaid compared with Medicaid-ineligible patients. Secondary outcomes included the DID of emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient discharges over the same period. Results: There were 20 211 patients included in the analysis: 1501 (7.4%) in the sample of predominantly undocumented Medicaid-ineligible patients (861 [57.4%] female) and 18 710 (92.6%) in the Medicaid control group (10 443 [55.8%] female). The mean (SD) age as of 2018 in the Medicaid-ineligible group was 38.2 (15.4) years compared with 22.2 (16.5) years in the control group. There was a differential decrease in completed visits among Medicaid-ineligible children compared with Medicaid children (DID estimate, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9) and Medicaid-ineligible adults (DID estimate, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9). There was also a significant differential increase in ED visits among Medicaid-ineligible children (DID estimate, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0). In addition, there was a differential decrease in inpatient discharges among Medicaid-ineligible adults (DID estimate, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), with no significant change in ED visits or ED admission rates in this group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, there was a significant decrease in primary care use among undocumented patients during a period of increased anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with the 2016 presidential campaign, coincident with an increase in ED visits among children and a decrease in inpatient discharges among adults, with the latter possibly attributed to a decrease in elective admissions during this period.