Assessment of Programs Aimed to Decrease or Prevent Mistreatment of Medical Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Mistreatment of medical students is pervasive and has negative effects on performance, well-being, and patient care. Objective: To document the published programmatic and curricular attempts to decrease the incidence of mistreatment. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and MedEdPORTAL were searched. Comprehensive searches were run on "mistreatment" and "abuse of medical trainees" on all peer-reviewed publications until November 1, 2017. Study Selection: Citations were reviewed for descriptions of programs to decrease the incidence of mistreatment in a medical school or hospital with program evaluation data. A mistreatment program was defined as an educational effort to reduce the abuse, mistreatment, harassment, or discrimination of trainees. Studies of the incidence of mistreatment without description of a program, references to a mistreatment program without outcome data, or a program that has never been implemented were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Authors independently reviewed all retrieved citations. Articles that any author found to meet inclusion criteria were included in a full-text review. The data extraction form was developed based on the guidelines for Best Evidence in Medical Education. An assessment of the study quality was conducted using a conceptual framework of 6 elements essential to the reporting of experimental studies in medical education. Main Outcomes and Measures: A descriptive review of the interventions and outcomes is presented along with an analysis of the methodological quality of the studies. A separate review of the MedEdPORTAL mistreatment curricula was conducted. Results: Of 3347 citations identified, 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Of the programs included in the 10 studies, all were implemented in academic medical centers. Seven programs were in the United States, 1 in Canada, 1 in the United Kingdom, and 1 in Australia. The most common format was a combination of lectures, workshops, and seminars over a variable time period. Overall, quality of included studies was low and only 1 study included a conceptual framework. Outcomes were most often limited to participant survey data. The program outcome evaluations consisted primarily of surveys and reports of mistreatment. All of the included studies evaluated participant satisfaction, which was mostly qualitative. Seven studies also included the frequency of mistreatment reports; either surveys to assess perception of the frequency of mistreatment or the frequency of reports via official reporting channels. Five mistreatment program curricula from MedEdPORTAL were also identified; of these, only 2 presented outcome data. Conclusions and Relevance: There are very few published programs attempting to address mistreatment of medical trainees. This review identifies a gap in the literature and provides advice for reporting on mistreatment programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".