Holistic Review in Applicant Selection: A Scoping Review.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Michael Gottlieb, Dayle Davenport, Adaira Landry, Jacob Bailey, Jennifer Westrick, Michelle Daniel
{"title":"Holistic Review in Applicant Selection: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Michael Gottlieb, Dayle Davenport, Adaira Landry, Jacob Bailey, Jennifer Westrick, Michelle Daniel","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To avoid overreliance on metrics and better identify candidates who add value to the learning environment, some medical schools and residency programs have begun using holistic review for screening and selection, but limited data support or refute this use. This scoping review examines holistic review definitions and practice in medical education, summarizes research findings, and identifies gaps for future research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The authors searched 7 databases using the keywords holistic, attributes, mission-based, mission-centric , and socially accountable for articles on holistic review within undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) published from database inception through July 5, 2024. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,511 articles were identified, with 33 included in this review. Twenty-five studies (76%) focused exclusively on GME, with only a few assessing holistic review in UME. Holistic review was implemented at 3 main stages: screening, interviewing, and ranking. Common rationales included service patterns, patient-physician identity concordance, enhancing patient trust, professional advocacy, and educational benefits. Holistic review elements varied, with most falling within the Association of American Medical Colleges experiences, attributes, and metrics framework. Nearly all studies reported an increase in the percentage of underrepresented in medicine trainees interviewed or selected. Several studies also demonstrated increases in other groups (e.g., women, lower socioeconomic status). Many studies included additional interventions to promote diversity, limiting the ability to assess holistic review in isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review summarizes the literature on rationale, development and implementation process, structure and components, outcomes assessed, barriers, and strategies for success for holistic review. This work can inform institutions and departments seeking to develop or refine their own holistic review systems and serve as a nidus for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005891","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To avoid overreliance on metrics and better identify candidates who add value to the learning environment, some medical schools and residency programs have begun using holistic review for screening and selection, but limited data support or refute this use. This scoping review examines holistic review definitions and practice in medical education, summarizes research findings, and identifies gaps for future research.

Method: The authors searched 7 databases using the keywords holistic, attributes, mission-based, mission-centric , and socially accountable for articles on holistic review within undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) published from database inception through July 5, 2024. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed.

Results: A total of 6,511 articles were identified, with 33 included in this review. Twenty-five studies (76%) focused exclusively on GME, with only a few assessing holistic review in UME. Holistic review was implemented at 3 main stages: screening, interviewing, and ranking. Common rationales included service patterns, patient-physician identity concordance, enhancing patient trust, professional advocacy, and educational benefits. Holistic review elements varied, with most falling within the Association of American Medical Colleges experiences, attributes, and metrics framework. Nearly all studies reported an increase in the percentage of underrepresented in medicine trainees interviewed or selected. Several studies also demonstrated increases in other groups (e.g., women, lower socioeconomic status). Many studies included additional interventions to promote diversity, limiting the ability to assess holistic review in isolation.

Conclusions: This scoping review summarizes the literature on rationale, development and implementation process, structure and components, outcomes assessed, barriers, and strategies for success for holistic review. This work can inform institutions and departments seeking to develop or refine their own holistic review systems and serve as a nidus for future research.

申请人遴选中的全面审查:范围审查。
目的:为了避免过度依赖衡量标准,更好地识别为学习环境增值的候选人,一些医学院校和住院医师培训项目已经开始使用整体审查进行筛选和选拔,但支持或反驳这种做法的数据有限。这篇范围综述探讨了医学教育中的整体审查定义和实践,总结了研究结果,并指出了未来研究的空白点:作者使用关键词 "整体性"、"属性"、"基于任务"、"以任务为中心 "和 "社会责任 "检索了 7 个数据库,以查找自数据库建立至 2024 年 7 月 5 日期间发表的有关本科医学教育(UME)和研究生医学教育(GME)中整体性审查的文章。两对作者独立筛选纳入文章并提取数据。不一致之处通过讨论解决。进行定量和定性综合:结果:共发现 6511 篇文章,其中 33 篇被纳入本综述。25项研究(76%)只关注普通高等教育,只有少数研究评估了大学教育中的整体审查。整体审查主要分为三个阶段:筛选、访谈和排序。常见的理由包括服务模式、医患身份一致性、增强患者信任、专业宣传和教育效益。整体评审的要素各不相同,大部分属于美国医学院协会的经验、属性和指标框架。几乎所有的研究都报告称,接受访谈或被选中的医学受训者中代表性不足者的比例有所增加。一些研究还表明,其他群体(如女性、社会经济地位较低)的比例也有所提高。许多研究还包括促进多样性的其他干预措施,从而限制了单独评估整体审查的能力:本范围综述总结了有关整体评审的原理、发展和实施过程、结构和组成部分、评估结果、障碍和成功策略的文献。这项工作可以为寻求发展或完善自己的整体审查系统的机构和部门提供信息,并作为未来研究的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信