Assessing Familiarity and Interest in Dermatology Among Underrepresented Minority Pre-medical Students Following an Introductory Lecture.

Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty in medicine. This may be due in part to limited early exposure and the lack of familiarity among minority pre-medical and medical students. Our study evaluated an intervention where 62 pre-medical students attended a virtual dermatology seminar on May 6, 2022. The seminar introduced dermatology, highlighted key leaders of color, and provided an opportunity for questions and responses. Surveys assessing familiarity with and interest in dermatology were administered before and after the seminar. Data was stored in Qualtrics (Provo, UT) and analyzed using RStudio (Posit PBC, Boston, MA), with a response rate of 89% (n=55). In the pre-survey, 20 students (32%) reported being familiar/very familiar with dermatology, compared to 47 students (85%) in the post-survey (P-value<0.001). Additionally, 26% (n=16) of students reported being likely to consider dermatology as a profession in the pre-survey versus the post-survey. These results suggest that targeted early-career interventions, such as this seminar, can increase familiarity and interest in dermatology among underrepresented in medicine (UIM) students, potentially contributing to greater diversity in the field.

Changing Perceptions About the Dermatology Residency Application Process Among Applicants and Program Directors: 2020-2022.

Importance Over the last two years, dermatology has undergone significant reforms in the residency application process in efforts to reduce applicant stress, increase equity, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Objective We aimed to determine applicant and program director (PD) perspectives in implementing these changes over the last two application cycles.  Design, setting, and participants Anonymous online surveys were administered by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to PDs and applicants from the 2021-2022 dermatology residency application cycle. These results were compared with similar online surveys distributed after the 2020-2021 cycle. Results Coordinated interview release was introduced in the 2020-2021 dermatology application cycle. At that time, 57% of PDs and 84% of applicants wished that more programs participated in the release, compared to 53% and 84%, respectively, in the 2021-2022 cycle. In 2021, 28% of PDs reported matching applicants from their home institution higher on their list compared to 14% in 2022. In 2021 and 2022, 94% of PDs reported that diversity was an explicit goal in their application process. However, in 2021, 33% of PDs reported that they matched no UIMs (underrepresented in medicine) in their cohort, which grew to 39% in 2022. Conclusions This study identifies key trends in applicant and PD perspectives associated with changes in the application process such as coordinated interview release, virtual interviews, and emphasis on diversity. Additional data is needed from subsequent cycles in order to determine the efficacy of these reforms.

Access to dermatologic care and provider impact on hidradenitis suppurativa care: global survey insights.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an understudied disease, and current HS studies have focused on participants already connected to dermatologic care. Objective: We surveyed participants in online HS support communities to gain a comprehensive understanding of how provider type impacts HS disease management and the issues individuals with HS face when accessing care. Methods: From June 13 to June 30, 2021, we administered an anonymous cross-sectional online survey to HS Facebook support group participants who had a self-confirmed diagnosis of HS. Survey items assessed respondent demographics, primary HS provider, and barriers to HS care and pain management. Descriptive analyses are presented. Results: The survey was viewed 5,168 times and 1,040 surveys met eligibility criteria (20.1%). Survey participants were 97% female and 72% White. Seventy-two percentage resided in the United States and 22% in Europe. Forty-seven percentage reported having a dermatologist as their primary HS provider, 38% reported a nondermatologist, and 15% reported no HS provider. We found that Asian race, full-time employment, private health insurance, and urban setting were each associated with higher rates of having a dermatologist as a primary HS provider. However, 43.7% of those with a dermatologist reported biologic use, as compared with 14.5% with nondermatologist HS providers. Our cohort was notably more severely impacted by comorbid diseases; 55.9% of our cohort had anxiety, 53.6% had depression, and 50.7% had obesity. Overall, 74.2% of our cohort reported experiencing stigma while accessing care for their HS. Limitations: Participant recruitment via social media platform facilitates recruitment of individuals across the spectrum of healthcare access, but may introduce selection bias and favor well-resourced areas. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias. Conclusion: Our study provides unique insights into the characteristics and experiences of individuals with HS across the spectrum of health care access.

Antiracism in Action: Development and Outcomes of a Mentorship Program for Premedical Students Who Are Underrepresented or Historically Excluded in Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Black, Latinx, and Native American and Alaska Native people are underrepresented in medicine. The increasingly competitive medical school application process poses challenges for students who are underrepresented in medicine or historically excluded from medicine (UIM/HEM). The University of California, San Francisco-University of California, Berkeley (UCSF-UCB) White Coats for Black Lives Mentorship Program provides a novel and antiracist approach to mentorship for these premedical students. METHODS: The program recruited UIM/HEM premedical and medical students through a survey advertised by email, on the program's website, social media, and by word of mouth. The program paired students primarily with race-concordant mentors, all of whom were UCSF medical students. From October 2020 to June 2021, program mentees engaged in skills-building seminars based on an antiracism framework and received support for preparing medical school applications. The program administered preprogram and postprogram surveys to mentees, which were analyzed via quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Sixty-five premedical mentees and 56 medical student mentors participated in the program. The preprogram survey received 60 responses (92.3% response rate), and the postprogram survey received 48 responses (73.8% response rate). In the preprogram survey, 85.0% of mentees indicated that MCAT scores served as a barrier "a great deal" or "a lot," 80.0% indicated lack of faculty mentorship, and 76.7% indicated financial considerations. Factors that improved most from preprogram to postprogram were personal statement writing (33.8 percentage-point improvement, P < .001), peer mentorship (24.2 percentage-point improvement, P = .01), and knowledge of medical school application timeline (23.3% percentage-point improvement, P = .01). CONCLUSION: The mentorship program improved student confidence in various factors influencing the preparation of medical school applications and offered access to skills-building resources that mitigated existing structural barriers.