Justin T Jordan1, Carolyn Cahill2, Tasha Ostendorf2, Laurie Gutmann2, Anita Navarro2, Charlene E Gamaldo2, Veronica E Santini2, Imran Ali2, Madhu Soni2, Rujuta B Wilson2, Rana R Said2, Barry M Czeisler2, Maggie Rock2, A Gordon Smith2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (J.T.J.), Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston; Member Insights Department (C.C., T.O.), American Academy of Neurology, Minneapolis, MN; Department of Neurology (L.G.), University of Iowa, Iowa City; School of Medicine (A.N.) and Department of Neurology (A.G.S.), Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; Department of Neurology (C.E.G.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Department of Neurology (V.S.), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; Department of Neurology (I.A.), University of Toledo, OH; Department of Neurological Sciences (M.S.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Department of Pediatrics & Psychiatry (R.B.W.), University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Department of Pediatrics (R.R.S.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Department of Neurology (B.M.C.), New York University, New York; and American Academy of Neurology (M.R.), Minneapolis, MN. JTJordan@MGH.Harvard.Edu. 2. From the Department of Neurology (J.T.J.), Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston; Member Insights Department (C.C., T.O.), American Academy of Neurology, Minneapolis, MN; Department of Neurology (L.G.), University of Iowa, Iowa City; School of Medicine (A.N.) and Department of Neurology (A.G.S.), Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; Department of Neurology (C.E.G.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Department of Neurology (V.S.), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA; Department of Neurology (I.A.), University of Toledo, OH; Department of Neurological Sciences (M.S.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Department of Pediatrics & Psychiatry (R.B.W.), University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Department of Pediatrics (R.R.S.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Department of Neurology (B.M.C.), New York University, New York; and American Academy of Neurology (M.R.), Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To better understand the reasons medical students select or avoid a career in neurology by using a qualitative methodology to explore these factors, with the long-term objective of attracting more graduates to the field. METHODS: In 2017, 27 medical students and 15 residents participated in 5 focus groups, and 33 fourth-year medical students participated in semistructured individual interviews. Participants were asked predefined open-ended questions about specialty choice, experiences in their basic neuroscience course and neurology clerkship, and perceptions about the field. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. We used a flexible coding methodology to generate themes across groups and interviews. RESULTS: Four main analytical themes emerged: (1) early and broad clinical exposure allows students to "try on" neurology and experience the variety of career options; (2) preclerkship experiences and a strong neuroscience curriculum lay the foundation for interest in the field; (3) personal interactions with neurology providers may attract or deter students from considering the specialty; and (4) persistent stereotypes about neurologists, neurology patients, and treatment options harm student perceptions of neurology. CONCLUSION: Efforts to draw more students to neurology may benefit from focusing on clinical correlations during preclerkship neuroscience courses and offering earlier and more diverse clinical experiences, including hands-on responsibilities whenever possible. Finally, optimizing student interactions with faculty and residents and reinforcing the many positive aspects of neurology are likely to favorably affect student perceptions.
OBJECTIVES: To better understand the reasons medical students select or avoid a career in neurology by using a qualitative methodology to explore these factors, with the long-term objective of attracting more graduates to the field. METHODS: In 2017, 27 medical students and 15 residents participated in 5 focus groups, and 33 fourth-year medical students participated in semistructured individual interviews. Participants were asked predefined open-ended questions about specialty choice, experiences in their basic neuroscience course and neurology clerkship, and perceptions about the field. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. We used a flexible coding methodology to generate themes across groups and interviews. RESULTS: Four main analytical themes emerged: (1) early and broad clinical exposure allows students to "try on" neurology and experience the variety of career options; (2) preclerkship experiences and a strong neuroscience curriculum lay the foundation for interest in the field; (3) personal interactions with neurology providers may attract or deter students from considering the specialty; and (4) persistent stereotypes about neurologists, neurology patients, and treatment options harm student perceptions of neurology. CONCLUSION: Efforts to draw more students to neurology may benefit from focusing on clinical correlations during preclerkship neuroscience courses and offering earlier and more diverse clinical experiences, including hands-on responsibilities whenever possible. Finally, optimizing student interactions with faculty and residents and reinforcing the many positive aspects of neurology are likely to favorably affect student perceptions.