Is the Future Green? Assessing Environmental Health Confidence in Internal Medicine Residents.

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-24-00081.1
Jessica Y Chambers, Jillian Rippon, Daniel Ahle, Xavier Le, Beth Miller, Alejandro Moreno
{"title":"Is the Future Green? Assessing Environmental Health Confidence in Internal Medicine Residents.","authors":"Jessica Y Chambers, Jillian Rippon, Daniel Ahle, Xavier Le, Beth Miller, Alejandro Moreno","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00081.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Despite global awareness of the impacts of climate change on human health, assessment of resident physicians' confidence in environmental health is limited. Lack of confidence in explaining environmental health topics can affect both patient education and advocacy efforts. <b>Objective</b> To determine how confident resident physicians are in their environmental health training and their ability to explain climate health topics. <b>Methods</b> An online survey was distributed to internal medicine residents at a large university-affiliated program in 2023. Self-perceived confidence levels in explaining various environmental health topics to a peer were measured using a Likert scale (from 1=not confident at all, to 5=completely confident) and a subsequent rank-order analysis of the response means. <b>Results</b> The response rate was 56% (62 out of 110 residents). A mean confidence score of 2.22 was reported on all topics, with hazardous waste (m=1.73), endocrine disruptors (m=1.76), water quality (m=1.9), toxicology (m=2.02), and environmental justice (m=2.04) representing lowest scores. Highest mean scores were reported in food security (m=2.71) and emerging infectious disease (m=2.92). Twenty-seven of 62 (44%) residents reported no confidence at all in their ability to discuss environmental justice concepts, with 17 of 62 (27%) reporting slight confidence in doing so. <b>Conclusions</b> Physician trainees report low confidence levels regarding their ability to explain multiple environmental topics to their peers. Forty-four of 62 (71%) residents report either no or slight confidence in their ability to explain environmental justice to a colleague.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"16 6 Suppl","pages":"99-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11644584/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of graduate medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00081.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Despite global awareness of the impacts of climate change on human health, assessment of resident physicians' confidence in environmental health is limited. Lack of confidence in explaining environmental health topics can affect both patient education and advocacy efforts. Objective To determine how confident resident physicians are in their environmental health training and their ability to explain climate health topics. Methods An online survey was distributed to internal medicine residents at a large university-affiliated program in 2023. Self-perceived confidence levels in explaining various environmental health topics to a peer were measured using a Likert scale (from 1=not confident at all, to 5=completely confident) and a subsequent rank-order analysis of the response means. Results The response rate was 56% (62 out of 110 residents). A mean confidence score of 2.22 was reported on all topics, with hazardous waste (m=1.73), endocrine disruptors (m=1.76), water quality (m=1.9), toxicology (m=2.02), and environmental justice (m=2.04) representing lowest scores. Highest mean scores were reported in food security (m=2.71) and emerging infectious disease (m=2.92). Twenty-seven of 62 (44%) residents reported no confidence at all in their ability to discuss environmental justice concepts, with 17 of 62 (27%) reporting slight confidence in doing so. Conclusions Physician trainees report low confidence levels regarding their ability to explain multiple environmental topics to their peers. Forty-four of 62 (71%) residents report either no or slight confidence in their ability to explain environmental justice to a colleague.

未来是绿色的吗?评估内科住院医生对环境健康的信心。
尽管全球都意识到气候变化对人类健康的影响,但对住院医师对环境健康的信心的评估是有限的。在解释环境卫生主题方面缺乏信心会影响患者教育和宣传工作。目的了解住院医师对环境健康培训的自信程度及其解释气候健康主题的能力。方法于2023年对某大型大学附属项目内科住院医师进行在线调查。使用李克特量表(从1=完全不自信,到5=完全自信)测量向同伴解释各种环境健康主题的自我感知信心水平,并随后对响应方法进行秩序分析。结果110名居民中应答率为56%(62人)。所有主题的平均置信分数为2.22,其中危险废物(m=1.73)、内分泌干扰物(m=1.76)、水质(m=1.9)、毒理学(m=2.02)和环境正义(m=2.04)代表最低分数。平均得分最高的是粮食安全(m=2.71)和新发传染病(m=2.92)。62名居民中有27人(44%)表示对自己讨论环境正义概念的能力完全没有信心,62人中有17人(27%)表示对此略有信心。结论:医师培训生报告对他们向同伴解释多个环境主题的能力的信心水平较低。62名居民中有44名(71%)表示,他们对自己向同事解释环境正义的能力没有信心或只有一点点信心。
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
Journal of graduate medical education
Journal of graduate medical education Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
248
期刊介绍: - Be the leading peer-reviewed journal in graduate medical education; - Promote scholarship and enhance the quality of research in the field; - Disseminate evidence-based approaches for teaching, assessment, and improving the learning environment; and - Generate new knowledge that enhances graduates'' ability to provide high-quality, cost-effective care.
×
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