Applying self-determination theory to stem medical schools' clinical teacher sustainability crisis.

THE PROBLEM: Medical schools require highly skilled and committed clinical faculty to teach, assess, supervise and mentor students' clinical care. Medical education is facing a crisis in recruiting and sustaining these clinical teachers. Faced with multiple demands and responsibilities in fast-paced clinical environments, teachers may not have the time, resources or stamina to sustain these critical roles. Medical school leaders must commit to and provide structures and processes to attract, sustain and retain clinical teachers. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: The authors use the lens of self-determination theory to frame approaches to support teacher sustainability. Self-determination theory describes sources of human motivation. The theory and its evidence base characterise three human psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This theory can bridge individual psychological and institutional leadership perspectives to help medical school leaders anticipate and respond to their clinical teachers' needs. The authors propose three practical steps: practices to advance employee-centredness, processes to align individual and institutional values, and restructuring education to support clinical teachers' needs alongside student and patient needs. The authors describe limitations to this relational approach that focuses on leadership actions and consider individual agency as another key factor for sustainability. DISCUSSION: Medical school leaders can develop and apply theory-driven approaches to advance sustainability. Sustainability now and in the future requires careful attention to the needs of clinical teachers and to their relationships with and within medical schools.

Strengthening the clinical academic pathway: a systematic review of interventions to support clinical academic careers for doctors and dentists.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate existing evidence on interventions intended to increase recruitment, retention and career progression within clinical academic (CA) careers, including a focus on addressing inequalities. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PsycINFO and Education Resource Information Center searched October 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included qualified doctors, dentists and/or those with a supervisory role. Outcomes were defined by studies and related to success rates of joining or continuing within a CA career. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Abstract screening was supported by machine learning software. Full-text screening was performed in duplicate, and study quality was assessed. Narrative synthesis of quantitative data was performed. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: 148 studies examined interventions; of which 28 were included in the quantitative synthesis, 17 in the qualitative synthesis and 2 in both. Studies lacked methodological rigour and/or were hindered by incomplete reporting. Most were from North America. No study included in the syntheses evaluated interventions aimed at CA dentists.Most quantitative evidence was from multifaceted training programmes. These may increase recruitment, but findings were less clear for retention and other outcomes. Qualitative studies reported benefits of supportive relationships, including peers and senior mentors. Protected time for research helped manage competing demands on CAs. Committed and experienced staff were seen as key facilitators of programme success. Respondents identified several other factors at a programme, organisational or national level which acted as facilitators or barriers to success. Few studies reported on the effects of interventions specific to women or minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research is limited by rigour and reporting. Better evaluation of future interventions, particularly those intended to address inequalities, is required. Within the limits of the evidence, comprehensive multifaceted programmes of training, including protected time, relational and support aspects, appear most successful in promoting CA careers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.

Not all who wander are lost: evaluation of the Hull York medical school longitudinal integrated clerkship.

Longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) are increasingly available within the United Kingdom, but gaps in knowledge remain regarding their efficacy and the influence of local context. In 2019-20, the Hull York Medical School ran a pilot LIC for 6 fourth-year medical students. This work describes the longitudinal qualitative programme evaluation. LIC students participated in two focus groups, one after four months, and another at the end of the programme. In total, 16 faculty were also interviewed regarding their experiences in developing, implementing and running the LIC. Students' GP supervisors were difficult to engage in detailed evaluation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and so were briefly surveyed at the end of the LIC. All data were pooled and analysed together using reflexive thematic analysis. Two major themes were identified: 'Trajectory of the LIC', describing the learning curve students and faculty encounter, and 'Institutional decision making', describing the need for clarity regarding the programme's purpose. The programme was largely positively received, but areas for improvement locally, and transferrable recommendations, were identified. Aligning assessment to programme aims is an important area for future development, alongside balancing structured with unstructured time, and supporting students as they navigate a J-shaped learning curve.

Situational judgement test validity for selection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are widely used to evaluate 'non-academic' abilities in medical applicants. However, there is a lack of understanding of how their predictive validity may vary across contexts. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise existing evidence relating to the validity of such tools for predicting outcomes relevant to interpersonal workplace performance. METHODS: Searches were conducted in relevant databases to June 2019. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis and meta-regressions. RESULTS: Initially, 470 articles were identified, 218 title or abstracts were reviewed, and 44 full text articles were assessed with 30 studies meeting the final inclusion criteria and were judged, overall, to be at moderate risk of bias. Of these, 26 reported correlation coefficients relating to validity, with a pooled estimate of 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.39, P < .0001). Considerable heterogeneity was observed (I2  = 96.5%) with the largest validity coefficients tending to be observed for postgraduate, rather than undergraduate, selection studies (ß = 0.23, 0.11 to 0.36, P < .001). The correction of validity coefficients for attenuation was also independently associated with larger effects (ß = 0.13, 0.03 to 0.23, P = .01). No significant associations with test medium (video vs text format), cross-sectional study design, or period of assessment (one-off vs longer-term) were observed. Where reported, the scores generally demonstrated incremental predictive validity, over and above tests of knowledge and cognitive ability. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SJTs in medical selection is supported by the evidence. The observed trend relating to training stage requires investigation. Further research should focus on developing robust criterion-relevant outcome measures that, ideally, capture interpersonal aspects of typical workplace performance. This will facilitate additional work identifying the optimal place of SJTs within particular selection contexts and further enhancing their effectiveness.

From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality.

BACKGROUND: Gender inequality within academic medicine and dentistry is a well-recognised issue, but one which is not completely understood in terms of its causes, or interventions to facilitate equality. This systematic review aims to identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the literature on facilitators and barriers to progression through a clinical academic career across medicine and dentistry. It will also explore interventions developed to increase recruitment and retention to clinical academic careers, with a particular focus on gender inequality. METHODS: The search will cover five databases (MEDLINE (including MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and MEDLINE Daily), Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)), reference lists, and forward citation searching. We will include studies of doctors, dentists, and/or those with a supervisory role over their careers, with or without an academic career. Outcomes will be study defined, but relate to success rates of joining or continuing within a clinical academic career, including but not limited to success in gaining funding support, proportion of time spent in academic work, and numbers of awards/higher education qualifications, as well as experiences of professionals within the clinical academic pathway. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials, the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for non-randomised studies, and the QARI tool for qualitative studies. Detailed plans for screening, data extraction, and analysis are provided within this protocol. DISCUSSION: This systematic review is situated within a larger project evaluating gender inequalities in clinical academic careers. This review will identify and synthetize barriers, facilitators, and interventions addressing gender inequalities in clinical academia. Our findings will increase awareness of inequalities in clinical academic careers through informing clinical academics, regulators and funders of the issues involved, and potential interventions to counteract these. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.

Student dignity during work-integrated learning: a qualitative study exploring student and supervisors' perspectives.

While University students increasingly participate in work-integrated learning (WIL), their dignity is often violated during WIL. The current literature is limited in so far as it typically focuses on student perspectives within healthcare contexts and does not use the concept of 'dignity'. Instead, this study explored student and supervisor perspectives on student dignity during WIL across healthcare and non-healthcare disciplines. Research questions included: What are: (1) types of student dignity experiences and patterns by groups; (2) factors contributing to experiences; (3) consequences of experiences? Sixty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted using narrative interviewing techniques with 30 supervisors and 46 students from healthcare (medicine, nursing and counselling) and non-healthcare (business, law and education) disciplines. Data were analyzed using framework analysis. Nine common narrative types were identified within 344 stories: verbal abuse, right for learning opportunities, care, inclusion, reasonable expectations, right for appropriate feedback, equality, trust, and right to be informed. Factors contributing to dignity experiences and consequences were often at the individual level (e.g. student/supervisor characteristics). We found some salient differences in perceptions of experiences between students and supervisors, but few differences between healthcare and non-healthcare disciplines. This study extends WIL research based on student perspectives in healthcare, and provides practice and further research guidance to enhance student dignity during WIL.

The Effectiveness of Teaching Clinical Empathy to Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Clinical empathy is a necessary trait to provide effective patient care, despite differences in how it is defined and constructed. The aim of this study was to examine whether empathy interventions in medical students are effective and how confounding factors potentially moderate this effect. METHOD: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. They searched the literature published between 1948 and 2018 for randomized controlled trials that examined empathy interventions in medical students. The search (database searching, citation tracking, hand-searching relevant journals) yielded 380 studies, which they culled to 16 that met the inclusion criteria. For the meta-analysis, they used a random effects model to produce a pooled estimate of the standardized mean difference (SMD), then completed subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The authors found evidence of the possibility of response and reporting bias. The pooled SMD was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.93), indicating a moderately positive effect of students developing empathy after an intervention compared with those in the control groups. There was no evidence of publication bias, but heterogeneity was significantly high (I = 88.5%, P < .01). Subgroup analyses indicated that significant moderating factors for developing empathy were age, country, scope of empathy measurement, type of empathy intervention, and presence of rehearsal. Moderating factors with limited evidence were sex, study quality, journal impact factor, and intervention characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity and biases, empathy interventions in medical students are effective. These findings reinforce arguments in the literature and add considerable rigor from the meta-analysis. The authors propose a conceptual model for educators to follow when designing empathy interventions in medical students.

Re-visioning Academic Medicine Through a Constructionist Lens.

Constructionism in academic medicine matters. It encourages educators and researchers to question taken-for-granted assumptions, paying close attention to socially and historically contingent meanings. In this Invited Commentary, the authors explain what constructionism is; examine its ontological, epistemological, and axiological underpinnings; and outline its common methodologies and methods. Although constructivism favors the individual, constructionism privileges the social as the controlling force behind the construction of meaning. Where micro-constructionism attends to the minutiae of language, macro-constructionism focuses on broader discourses reproduced through material and social practices and structures. While social constructionists might situate themselves at any point on the relativist-realist continuum, many constructionists focus on constructionism as epistemology (the nature of knowledge) rather than ontology (the nature of reality). From an epistemological standpoint, constructionism asserts that how we come to know the world is constructed through social interaction. Constructionism thus values language, dialogue, and context, in addition to internal coherence between epistemology, methodology, and methods. Constructionism similarly values the concepts of dependability, authenticity, credibility, confirmability, reflexivity, and transferability. It also embraces the researcher-researched relationship. Given the privileging of language, qualitative methodologies and methods are key in constructionism, with constructionist-type questions focusing on how people speak. Here, the authors encourage the reader to develop an understanding of constructionism to re-vision academic medicine through a constructionist lens.

Student and clinician identities: how are identities constructed in interprofessional narratives?

CONTEXT: Although the literature on professional identity formation in medical education is increasing, it is scant by comparison on student and clinician identities within interprofessional contexts. We therefore adopt a novel discursive approach to identities to explore how soon-to-become graduates and workplace-based clinicians construct their own and others' identities in interprofessional student-clinician (IPSC) interaction narratives. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative narrative interview study with 38 students and 23 clinicians representing the fields of medicine, midwifery, nursing, occupational therapy, paramedicine and physiotherapy. Through framework analysis, we identified the breadth of student and clinician identity constructions across 208 IPSC interaction narratives, and explored how common constructions differed by narrative and narrator. Through in-depth positioning analysis, we explored how student and clinician identities are discursively positioned within two selected IPSC interaction narratives. RESULTS: We identified 11 common constructions of student identities and eight common constructions of clinician identities across all 208 narratives. We found differences in identity constructions across positively versus negatively evaluated narratives, and student versus clinician narrators, highlighting the rhetorical nature of narratives. Our in-depth positioning analysis of two narratives illustrates how one student and one clinician discursively positioned theirs and others' identities during interprofessional interactions, and how identities vary depending on narrators' evaluations of their stories. Although both positioning analyses illustrate how the narrators' language serves to reproduce the common societal discourse of interprofessional conflict, the clinician narrative also draws on the competing discourse of interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the identities support previous uniprofessional research, our findings illustrate greater breadth and depth in terms of student and clinician identities within interprofessional contexts. We encourage educators to embed identities curricula into existing workplace learning for students and clinicians to help them make sense of their developing professional and interprofessional identities. Workplace educators should facilitate meaningful IPSC interactions to promote interprofessional learning and collaboration.

What really matters for successful research environments? A realist synthesis.

CONTEXT: Research environments, or cultures, are thought to be the most influential predictors of research productivity. Although several narrative and systematic reviews have begun to identify the characteristics of research-favourable environments, these reviews have ignored the contextual complexities and multiplicity of environmental characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The current synthesis adopts a realist approach to explore what interventions work for whom and under what circumstances. METHODS: We conducted a realist synthesis of the international literature in medical education, education and medicine from 1992 to 2016, following five stages: (i) clarifying the scope; (ii) searching for evidence; (iii) assessing quality; (iv) extracting data, and (v) synthesising data. RESULTS: We identified numerous interventions relating to research strategy, people, income, infrastructure and facilities (IIF), and collaboration. These interventions resulted in positive or negative outcomes depending on the context and mechanisms fired. We identified diverse contexts at the individual and institutional levels, but found that disciplinary contexts were less influential. There were a multiplicity of positive and negative mechanisms, along with three cross-cutting mechanisms that regularly intersected: time; identity, and relationships. Outcomes varied widely and included both positive and negative outcomes across subjective (e.g. researcher identity) and objective (e.g. research quantity and quality) domains. CONCLUSIONS: The interplay among mechanisms and contexts is central to understanding the outcomes of specific interventions, bringing novel insights to the literature. Researchers, research leaders and research organisations should prioritise the protection of time for research, enculturate researcher identities, and develop collaborative relationships to better foster successful research environments. Future research should further explore the interplay among time, identity and relationships.

Junior doctor psychiatry placements in hospital and community settings: a phenomenological study.

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of junior doctors required to complete psychiatry placements in the UK has increased, due in part to vacant training posts and psychiatry career workforce shortages, as can be seen across the world. The aim of this study was to understand the lived experience of a Foundation Year 1 junior doctor psychiatry placement and to understand how job components influence attitudes. DESIGN: The study was conducted using a cross-sectional qualitative phenomenological approach. SETTING: Hospital and community psychiatry department settings in the North East of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 14 Foundation Year 1 junior doctors were interviewed including seven men and seven women aged between 23 and 34 years. The majority had completed their medical degree in the UK and were White British. RESULTS: The lived experience of a junior doctor psychiatry placement was understood by three core themes: exposure to patient recovery, connectedness with others in the healthcare team and subjective interpretations of psychiatry. The experiences were moderated by instances of role definition, reaction to the specialty and the organisational fit of the junior doctor capacity in the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: The study reinforces and adds to the literature by identifying connectedness as being important for both job satisfaction and morale, which is currently damaged within the junior doctor population. The study provides in-depth insights into the lived experience of psychiatry placements and can be taken forward by educationalists to ensure the placements are meaningful experiences for junior doctors by developing role definition, belonging, structure and psychiatric care responsibility.

A systematic literature review of undergraduate clinical placements in underserved areas.

CONTEXT: The delivery of undergraduate clinical education in underserved areas is increasing in various contexts across the world in response to local workforce needs. A collective understanding of the impact of these placements is lacking. Previous reviews have often taken a positivist approach by only looking at outcome measures. This review addresses the question: What are the strengths and weaknesses for medical students and supervisors of community placements in underserved areas? METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out by database searching, citation searching, pearl growing, reference list checking and use of own literature. The databases included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and ERIC. The search terms used were combinations and variations of four key concepts exploring general practitioner (GP) primary care, medical students, placements and location characteristics. The papers were analysed using a textual narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: The initial search identified 4923 results. After the removal of duplicates and the screening of titles and abstracts, 185 met the inclusion criteria. These full articles were obtained and assessed for their relevance to the research question; 54 were then included in the final review. Four main categories were identified: student performance, student perceptions, career pathways and supervisor experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This review reflects the emergent qualitative data as well as the quantitative data used to assess initiatives. Underserved area placements have produced many beneficial implications for students, supervisors and the community. There is a growing amount of evidence regarding rural, underserved areas, but little in relation to inner city, deprived areas, and none in the UK.