98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: In medical education, self-administered questionnaires are used to gather information for needs assessments, innovation projects, program evaluations, and research studies. Despite the importance of survey methodology, response rates have declined for years, especially for physicians.
Objective: This study explored residents' experiences with survey participation and perceptions of survey design and implementation.
Methods: In 2019, residents at a large Midwestern academic medical center were recruited via email to participate in mixed specialty focus groups (FGs). Narrative comments were recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed via conventional content analysis, utilizing cognitive sociology as a conceptual framework. Themes and subthemes were generated iteratively.
Results: Postgraduate year 1-4 residents (n = 33) from internal medicine, surgery, and neurology participated in 7 FGs (3-7 participants/group) from April-May 2019. Eight themes were generated during content analysis: Negative emotions, professionalism, accuracy, impact, survey design/implementation, biases, survey fatigue, and anonymity. Residents questioned the accuracy of survey data, given the tendency for self-selection to drive survey participation. Residents wanted survey participation to be meaningful and reported non-participation for a variety of reasons, including doubts over impact. Satisficing and breakoffs were commonly reported.
Conclusions: Though residency program cultures differ across institutions, the findings from this study, including potential barriers to survey participation, should be relevant to anyone in graduate medical education using survey methodology for programmatic data collection, accreditation, and research purposes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8207917 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-01431.1 | DOI Listing |
JMIR Hum Factors
September 2025
Department of Community Health Systems, University of California, San Francisco, School of Nursing, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced the world to quarantine to slow the rate of transmission, causing communities to transition into virtual spaces. Asian American and Pacific Islander communities faced the additional challenge of discrimination that stemmed from racist and xenophobic rhetoric in the media. Limited data exist on technology use among Asian American and Pacific Islander adults during the height of the COVID-19 shelter-in-place period and its effect on their physical and mental health.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJAMA Dermatol
September 2025
Department of Population Health, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Importance: Increasingly, strategies to systematically detect melanomas invoke targeted approaches, whereby those at highest risk are prioritized for skin screening. Many tools exist to predict future melanoma risk, but most have limited accuracy and are potentially biased.
Objectives: To develop an improved melanoma risk prediction tool for invasive melanoma.
JAMA Surg
September 2025
Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Importance: Stoma reversal is associated with few complications. However, recent studies show that 1 in 3 patients develop an incisional hernia, for which half of the patients receive surgical correction.
Objective: To investigate whether prophylactic synthetic mesh placement in the retromuscular space during stoma reversal reduces the rate of stomal site incisional hernias.
JAMA Netw Open
September 2025
Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Importance: Survivors of critical illness often have ongoing issues that affect functioning, including driving ability.
Objective: To examine whether intensive care unit (ICU) delirium is independently associated with long-term changes in driving behaviors.
Design, Setting, And Participants: This multicenter, longitudinal cohort study included 151 survivors of critical illness residing within 200 miles of Nashville, Tennessee.
J Bioeth Inq
September 2025
Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
When treatments are deemed not to be cost-effective and face non-reimbursement, policymakers in publicly funded healthcare systems may decide to ration treatments by withholding it from future patients. However, they must also address a critical question: should they also ration treatments by withdrawing it from patients already having access to the treatment, or is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatments? To explore this question, we conducted a behavioural experiment (n=1404), examining public support for withdrawing and withholding treatments in reimbursement decisions across eleven different circumstances. Overall, public support for rationing by withdrawing and withholding was low, with no general perceived difference between withdrawing and withholding treatments.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF