| Literature DB >> 35764972 |
Krishanu Chatterjee1,2, Victoria S Edmonds3,4, Marlene E Girardo5, Kristin S Vickers6, Julie C Hathaway7, Cynthia M Stonnington8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread efforts to create wellness programming in medical schools, there is a paucity of literature examining students' perception of wellness and perceptions of these programs. With the inaugural class at the Arizona campus of Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine (MCASOM-AZ), an opportunity arose to establish an empirically evaluated wellness curriculum that most inclusively and effectively enables medical students to flourish for years to come. The initial wellness offerings included mental health, academic success, and disability services, curriculum-embedded seminars, wellness committee driven programming, and student-proposed wellness activities. We aimed to improve the relevance and impact of medical school wellness curricula by soliciting in-depth and longitudinal perspectives of medical students themselves. As MCASOM-AZ opened in 2017, the student body at the time of study consisted of first- and second-year medical students.Entities:
Keywords: Education environment; Qualitative analysis; Student wellness; Undergraduate medical education; Wellness curriculum
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35764972 PMCID: PMC9241274 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03552-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 3.263
Fig. 1List of question prompts used to guide sit-down wellness interview
Demographic breakdown of respondents at baseline, midterm (6-month follow-up), and final (12-month follow-up) time-points
| 0.15881 | ||||
| ≤ 23 | 21 (42.9%) | 6 (20.0%) | 6 (20.7%) | |
| 24–29 | 22 (44.9%) | 19 (63.3%) | 19 (65.5%) | |
| ≥ 30 | 6 (12.2%) | 5 (16.7%) | 4 (13.8%) | |
| 0.92801 | ||||
| Female | 25 (51.0%) | 18 (60.0%) | 14 (48.3%) | |
| Male | 24 (49.0%) | 12 (40.0%) | 15 (51.7%) | |
| Non-conforming | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 49 | 30 | 29 |
1Chi-Square p-value. There was no difference in age or gender between participants who only responded at baseline and those who completed one or both follow-up questionnaires
Fig. 2Importance Rankings of Wellness Factors. Preclinical students were asked to rank these 8 factors, in order of most to least important to their overall wellness. Percentage of students that ranked a given factor either 1, 2, or 3 is graphically shown for each timepoint (baseline, midterm (6 months), and final (12 months)
Predominant themes identified from sit-down interviews, with representative quotes
| Predominant Theme | Representative Quote |
|---|---|