Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance.ResultsOne hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel.ConclusionsThe use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Although the evidence base around uncertainty and education has expanded in recent years, a lack of clarity around conceptual terms and a heterogeneity of study designs means that this landscape remains indistinct. This scoping review explores how undergraduate health professions' students learn to engage with uncertainty related to their academic practice. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review which examines teaching and learning related to uncertainty across multiple health professions. The scoping review is underpinned by the five-stage framework of (Arksey and O'Malley in Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1) 19-32, 2005). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL and hand-searched selected health professions' education journals. The search strategy yielded a total of 5,017 articles, of which 97 were included in the final review. Four major themes were identified: "Learners' interactions with uncertainty"; "Factors that influence learner experiences"; "Educational outcomes"; and, "Teaching and learning approaches". Our findings highlight that uncertainty is a ubiquitous concern in health professions' education, with students experiencing different forms of uncertainty at many stages of their training. These experiences are influenced by both individual and system-related factors. Formal teaching strategies that directly support learning around uncertainty were infrequent, and included arts-based teaching, and clinical case presentations. Students also met with uncertainty indirectly through problem-based learning, clinical teaching, humanities teaching, simulation, team-based learning, small group learning, tactical games, online discussion of anatomy topics, and virtual patients. Reflection and reflective practice are also mentioned as strategies within the literature.

Purpose: This study aimed to measure student satisfaction with a revised ophthalmology delivery format, which due to the pandemic had previously relied on a remote online flipped classroom (OFC) format compared to a blended learning format. This educational strategy combined online learning with in-person seminars and practical patient centred sessions. Our previous investigations demonstrated a significant lack of student satisfaction with a curriculum solely reliant on a remote OFC, as such we hypothesised that a blended learning approach would result in improved levels of student satisfaction and knowledge gain. Methods: Non-randomised intervention study of two groups; group 1 = OFC group and group 2 = BL group, compared perspectives of 4th year ophthalmology students using a validated course evaluation questionnaire (CEQ). Results: A total of 59 students from the BL group (n = 257; response rate = 23.0%) and 28 from the OFC group agreed to participate in the study (n = 114; response rate = 24.6%). Participants in the BL group felt it was easier to determine the standard of work that was expected (77.42% v 60.71%) and demonstrated significantly increased satisfaction with staff motivation of students (95.16% v 64.29%, p <0.001) and provision of feedback (74.19% v 46.43%, p = 0.004), compared to the OFC group. Furthermore, students in the BL group also felt the course significantly improved their analytical skills (64.52% v 42.85%, p = 0.023) and ability to work as part of team (69.36% v 25%, p <0.001) as well as reporting reduced dissatisfaction with the level of choice afforded in terms of how they would learn (33.88% v 60.71%, p = 0.31) and the how they were assessed (59.68% v 89.28%, p = 0.004). No evidence of a statistical difference in exam score was observed. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated an unavoidable pivot to online and distance learning, to meet the challenges presented by government mandates and social distancing requirements. Since many of these directives have been reversed, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness and learner perceptions' of the online and distance learning interventions. In this study we demonstrated a significant student preference for BL compared to the OFC approach, with comparable student performances determined by MCQ examinations. Our findings suggest a preference for reintroducing in-person and patient engagement activities in post-pandemic health professions education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract While case-based discussions can empower students to apply knowledge to contextual clinical situations, scheduling these activities is a challenge in crowded curricula. Case-based eLearning activities, derived from existing cases discussed within anatomy small group tutorials, were created incorporating principles such as interactivity, reinforcement, and feedback. Over half of the students accessed one or more of these online cases, with 18% accessing all eight online cases provided. Access increased as the semester progressed, particularly just before summative examinations, implying students used these primarily as revision aides. Students rated both formats highly, but favored the online format with regard to enjoyment (P = 0.048), learning (P = 0.101), and feedback (P = 0.086). However, more students discussed these cases in small group tutorials within the anatomy dissecting room than completed them online (122 vs. 67) and themes emerging from free text comments included a desire to have more time dedicated to these cases during small group tutorials, and an appreciation for the opportunity for "discussion with staff" and "learning through doing." Additionally, native English speakers rated the anatomy room discussions significantly higher in all aspects than non-native English speakers, suggesting that non-native speakers may be hesitant or reluctant to fully participate in front of peers. While online case-based learning activities are a useful adjunct to anatomy teaching, particularly for revision, assumptions that "digital natives" have an innate preference for digital resources require critical evaluation, as students still place a high value on opportunities for "discussion with staff" during their studies.