RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The growing shortage of neurologists is in part due to suboptimal recruitment. Little is known about students' decision making regarding a career in neurology, particularly early in training. Using a longitudinal qualitative approach, we aimed to understand factors that influence first-year medical students' decisions about neurology. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semistructured interviews with 15 first-year medical students at 1 institution before and after the preclinical neurology course (2018-2019). In the first interview, we asked about career intentions, factors likely to influence specialty choice, and perceptions of neurology. In the second interview, we asked about changes in students' views over the year. Using thematic analysis, we generated codes and clustered coded data into themes. RESULTS: The 2 most prominent factors influencing career choice in general were lifestyle and personal interest. No students expressed concerns about lifestyle in neurology. Most students were neutral about neurology or had a positive personal interest, which typically increased after the neurology course. Students frequently worried about content difficulty and the curative potential of neurology. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions should include early education about the factors important to students in determining specialty choice, including lifestyle, and address potentially negative perceptions of neurology. Increasing time allotment to the preclinical neurology course may combat perception of the content as difficult.
RESUMEN
Many novel therapies are now available for rare neuromuscular conditions that were previously untreatable. Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and spinal muscular atrophy are two examples of diseases with new medications that have transformed our field. The United States and the United Kingdom have taken disparate approaches to the approval and coverage of medications, despite both providing incentives to develop therapies targeting rare diseases. The US requires less evidence for approval when compared with medications for common diseases and does not have a mechanism to ensure or even encourage cost-effectiveness. The Institute of Clinical and Economic Review provides in-depth cost-effectiveness analyses in the US, but does not have the authority to negotiate drug costs. In contrast, the UK has maintained a similar scientific threshold for approval of all therapies, while requiring negotiation with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to ensure that medications are cost-effective for rare diseases. These differences have led to approval of medications for rare diseases in the US that have less evidence than required for common diseases. Importantly, these medications have not been approved in the UK. Even when medications meet traditional scientific thresholds, they uniformly arrive with high list prices in the US, whereas they are available at cost-effective prices in the UK. The main downsides to the UK approach are that cost-effective medications are often available months later than in the US, and some medications remain unavailable.