Liselotte N Dyrbye1, Andres F Sciolla, Michael Dekhtyar, Senthil Rajasekaran, J Aaron Allgood, Margaret Rea, Allison P Knight, Antwione Haywood, Stephen Smith, Mark B Stephens. 1. L.N. Dyrbye is professor of medicine and medical education, Program on Physician Well-Being, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. A.F. Sciolla is associate professor, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. M. Dekhtyar is research associate, Medical Education Outcomes, American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois. S. Rajasekaran is professor of pharmacology, Department of Physiological Sciences, and associate dean of academic affairs, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia. J.A. Allgood is associate professor, A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona, Mesa, Arizona. M. Rea is director of student wellness, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. A.P. Knight is associate dean for student affairs and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia. A. Haywood is assistant dean for student affairs, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. S. Smith is associate dean for student affairs, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. M.B. Stephens is professor of family and community medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the breadth of strategies U.S. medical schools use to promote medical student well-being. METHOD: In October 2016, 32 U.S. medical schools were surveyed about their student well-being initiatives, resources, and infrastructure; grading in preclinical courses; and learning communities. RESULTS: Twenty-seven schools (84%) responded. Sixteen (59%) had a student well-being curriculum, with content scheduled during regular curricular hours at most (13/16; 81%). These sessions were held at least monthly (12/16; 75%), and there was a combination of optional and mandatory attendance (9/16; 56%). Most responding schools offered a variety of emotional/spiritual, physical, financial, and social well-being activities. Nearly one-quarter had a specific well-being competency (6/27; 22%). Most schools relied on participation rates (26/27; 96%) and student satisfaction (22/27; 81%) to evaluate effectiveness. Sixteen (59%) assessed student well-being from survey data, and 7 (26%) offered students access to self-assessment tools. Other common elements included an individual dedicated to overseeing student well-being (22/27; 82%), a student well-being committee (22/27; 82%), pass/fail grading in preclinical courses (20/27; 74%), and the presence of learning communities (22/27; 81%). CONCLUSIONS: Schools have implemented a broad range of well-being curricula and activities intended to promote self-care, reduce stress, and build social support for medical students, with variable resources, infrastructure, and evaluation. Implementing dedicated well-being competencies and rigorously evaluating their impact would help ensure appropriate allocation of time and resources and determine if well-being strategies are making a difference. Strengthening evaluation is an important next step in alleviating learner distress and ultimately improving student well-being.
PURPOSE: To describe the breadth of strategies U.S. medical schools use to promote medical student well-being. METHOD: In October 2016, 32 U.S. medical schools were surveyed about their student well-being initiatives, resources, and infrastructure; grading in preclinical courses; and learning communities. RESULTS: Twenty-seven schools (84%) responded. Sixteen (59%) had a student well-being curriculum, with content scheduled during regular curricular hours at most (13/16; 81%). These sessions were held at least monthly (12/16; 75%), and there was a combination of optional and mandatory attendance (9/16; 56%). Most responding schools offered a variety of emotional/spiritual, physical, financial, and social well-being activities. Nearly one-quarter had a specific well-being competency (6/27; 22%). Most schools relied on participation rates (26/27; 96%) and student satisfaction (22/27; 81%) to evaluate effectiveness. Sixteen (59%) assessed student well-being from survey data, and 7 (26%) offered students access to self-assessment tools. Other common elements included an individual dedicated to overseeing student well-being (22/27; 82%), a student well-being committee (22/27; 82%), pass/fail grading in preclinical courses (20/27; 74%), and the presence of learning communities (22/27; 81%). CONCLUSIONS: Schools have implemented a broad range of well-being curricula and activities intended to promote self-care, reduce stress, and build social support for medical students, with variable resources, infrastructure, and evaluation. Implementing dedicated well-being competencies and rigorously evaluating their impact would help ensure appropriate allocation of time and resources and determine if well-being strategies are making a difference. Strengthening evaluation is an important next step in alleviating learner distress and ultimately improving student well-being.
Authors: Susan M Cheng; David L Taylor; Allison A Fitzgerald; Charlene C Kuo; Kristi D Graves Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 2.701
Authors: Hannah D Caldwell; Sandra A Ham; Christopher D Mattson; James N Woodruff; Wei Wei Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Michael R Brunner; Daniel Peters; Mary Virginia Portera; Irtiqa Fazili; Mary McBride; Mallie Dennis; Michael J Herr Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2020-08