OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in community pediatrics training from 2002 to 2005. METHODS: Pediatric residency program directors were surveyed in 2002 and 2005 to assess resident training experiences in community pediatrics. Program directors reported on the following: provision of training in community settings; inclusion of didactic and practical teaching on community health topics; resident involvement in legislative, advocacy, and community-based research activities; and emphasis placed on specific resources and training during resident recruitment. Cross-sectional and matched-pair analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 168 program directors participated in 2002 (81% response rate), and 161 participated in 2005 (79% response rate). In both years, more than 50% of programs required resident involvement with schools, child care centers, and child protection teams. Compared with 2002, in 2005, more programs included didactic training on legislative advocacy (69% vs 53%, P < .01) and offered a practical experience in this area (53% vs 40%, P < .05). In 2005, program directors reported greater resident involvement in providing legislative testimony (P < .05), and greater emphasis was placed on child advocacy training during resident recruitment (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In the last several years, there has been a consistent focus on legislative activities and child advocacy in pediatric residency programs. These findings suggest a strong perceived value of these activities and should inform efforts to rethink the content of general pediatric residency training in the future.
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in community pediatrics training from 2002 to 2005. METHODS: Pediatric residency program directors were surveyed in 2002 and 2005 to assess resident training experiences in community pediatrics. Program directors reported on the following: provision of training in community settings; inclusion of didactic and practical teaching on community health topics; resident involvement in legislative, advocacy, and community-based research activities; and emphasis placed on specific resources and training during resident recruitment. Cross-sectional and matched-pair analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 168 program directors participated in 2002 (81% response rate), and 161 participated in 2005 (79% response rate). In both years, more than 50% of programs required resident involvement with schools, child care centers, and child protection teams. Compared with 2002, in 2005, more programs included didactic training on legislative advocacy (69% vs 53%, P < .01) and offered a practical experience in this area (53% vs 40%, P < .05). In 2005, program directors reported greater resident involvement in providing legislative testimony (P < .05), and greater emphasis was placed on child advocacy training during resident recruitment (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In the last several years, there has been a consistent focus on legislative activities and child advocacy in pediatric residency programs. These findings suggest a strong perceived value of these activities and should inform efforts to rethink the content of general pediatric residency training in the future.
Authors: Matthew A Goldshore; Barry S Solomon; Stephen M Downs; Richard Pan; Cynthia S Minkovitz Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 3.107