Search

Abstract Background Medical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Methods In 2022–23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern’s six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results. Results A total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: “Utilizing Trainee Feedback” related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); “Inclusion” related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and “Obstacles”, “Catalysts”, and “Sustainability” related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5). Conclusions Trainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy.

Background: Medical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Methods: In 2022–23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results. Results: A total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: "Utilizing Trainee Feedback" related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); "Inclusion" related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and "Obstacles", "Catalysts", and "Sustainability" related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5). Conclusions: Trainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drafting your own letter of recommendation (LoR) is becoming a more common request across all levels of medicine and academia. This can be a daunting task in an environment where metrics for advancement continually increase and meaningful relationships with mentors, supervisors, and leaders are not promoted or easy to come by. The authors recently held a workshop where the challenges, advantages, and pitfalls of writing you own LoR were discussed. In this Personal View article, we took into consideration audience feedback and provide proactive successful approaches based on experience of writing our own LoRs and writing and reviewing LoRs from the level of undergraduate admission to faculty promotion in academic medicine. We acknowledge the advantages and pitfalls of writing your own LoR and offer practical methods/approaches as tools for success.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Drafting your own letter of recommendation (LoR) is becoming a more common request across all levels of medicine and academia. This can be a daunting task in an environment where metrics for advancement continually increase and meaningful relationships with mentors, supervisors, and leaders are not promoted or easy to come by. The authors recently held a workshop where the challenges, advantages, and pitfalls of writing you own LoR were discussed. In this Personal View article, we took into consideration audience feedback and provide proactive successful approaches based on experience of writing our own LoRs and writing and reviewing LoRs from the level of undergraduate admission to faculty promotion in academic medicine. We acknowledge the advantages and pitfalls of writing your own LoR and offer practical methods/approaches as tools for success., (Copyright: © 2020 Currier Thomas T et al.)