Y. Jarris, Heidi Chang, Sarah Kureshi, R. Mishori, Linda Kaljee, John Hunting, May-Lorie Saint Laurent, H. C. Chen
{"title":"食品不安全筛查:医学生课程","authors":"Y. Jarris, Heidi Chang, Sarah Kureshi, R. Mishori, Linda Kaljee, John Hunting, May-Lorie Saint Laurent, H. C. Chen","doi":"10.22454/primer.2024.858771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Food insecurity (FI) is defined as a lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. We sought to determine how a longitudinal FI screening curriculum impacts medical students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in screening for FI.\nMethods: This was a prospective, single-institution study. The curriculum consisted of three components completed over 3 years. We administered a survey to the intervention cohort before and after the curriculum and analyzed their written reflections. We also evaluated whether students screened for FI during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) and compared their performance to a control cohort, which did not receive the curriculum.\nResults: Preintervention, students felt screening for FI was important for physicians to do with their patients, but most felt uncomfortable addressing it in clinical settings. Postintervention, there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores for knowledge questions (45.24% vs 74.74%, P<.001, pre- and postintervention, respectively). Students also felt more confident in their abilities to screen and follow up about FI. Additionally, compared to the control cohort, the intervention cohort screened for FI more often during their OSCE (28.21% vs 10.71%, P<.001).\nConclusion: A longitudinal curriculum using minimal curricular time can improve students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior when screening for FI. Students who received the curriculum were more likely to recognize the need for and perform FI screening. Based on these findings, we anticipate that the curriculum will increase the likelihood of students identifying, screening for, and intervening in cases of FI in future clinical encounters.","PeriodicalId":507541,"journal":{"name":"PRiMER","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening for Food Insecurity: A Curriculum for Medical Students\",\"authors\":\"Y. Jarris, Heidi Chang, Sarah Kureshi, R. Mishori, Linda Kaljee, John Hunting, May-Lorie Saint Laurent, H. C. Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.22454/primer.2024.858771\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Food insecurity (FI) is defined as a lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. We sought to determine how a longitudinal FI screening curriculum impacts medical students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in screening for FI.\\nMethods: This was a prospective, single-institution study. The curriculum consisted of three components completed over 3 years. We administered a survey to the intervention cohort before and after the curriculum and analyzed their written reflections. We also evaluated whether students screened for FI during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) and compared their performance to a control cohort, which did not receive the curriculum.\\nResults: Preintervention, students felt screening for FI was important for physicians to do with their patients, but most felt uncomfortable addressing it in clinical settings. Postintervention, there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores for knowledge questions (45.24% vs 74.74%, P<.001, pre- and postintervention, respectively). Students also felt more confident in their abilities to screen and follow up about FI. Additionally, compared to the control cohort, the intervention cohort screened for FI more often during their OSCE (28.21% vs 10.71%, P<.001).\\nConclusion: A longitudinal curriculum using minimal curricular time can improve students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior when screening for FI. Students who received the curriculum were more likely to recognize the need for and perform FI screening. Based on these findings, we anticipate that the curriculum will increase the likelihood of students identifying, screening for, and intervening in cases of FI in future clinical encounters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRiMER\",\"volume\":\"3 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRiMER\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22454/primer.2024.858771\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRiMER","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/primer.2024.858771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:粮食不安全(FI)被定义为缺乏足够的食物来维持积极健康的生活。我们试图确定纵向食物不安全筛查课程如何影响医学生筛查食物不安全的知识、态度和行为:这是一项前瞻性的单机构研究。该课程由三个部分组成,历时三年。我们在课程前后对干预人群进行了调查,并分析了他们的书面反思。我们还评估了学生在客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)中是否筛查出 FI,并将他们的成绩与未接受该课程的对照组进行了比较:结果:干预前,学生们认为对病人进行 FI 筛查对医生来说很重要,但大多数学生认为在临床环境中处理这一问题很不自在。干预后,知识问题的平均得分有了显著提高(干预前和干预后分别为 45.24% 和 74.74%,P<.001)。学生们对自己筛查和跟进 FI 的能力也更有信心。此外,与对照组相比,干预组在 OSCE 中筛查 FI 的频率更高(28.21% vs 10.71%,P<.001):纵向课程利用最少的课程时间就能提高学生在筛查 FI 时的知识、态度和行为。接受该课程的学生更有可能认识到进行 FI 筛查的必要性,并愿意进行筛查。基于这些研究结果,我们预计该课程将提高学生在未来临床工作中识别、筛查和干预 FI 病例的可能性。
Screening for Food Insecurity: A Curriculum for Medical Students
Introduction: Food insecurity (FI) is defined as a lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. We sought to determine how a longitudinal FI screening curriculum impacts medical students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in screening for FI.
Methods: This was a prospective, single-institution study. The curriculum consisted of three components completed over 3 years. We administered a survey to the intervention cohort before and after the curriculum and analyzed their written reflections. We also evaluated whether students screened for FI during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) and compared their performance to a control cohort, which did not receive the curriculum.
Results: Preintervention, students felt screening for FI was important for physicians to do with their patients, but most felt uncomfortable addressing it in clinical settings. Postintervention, there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores for knowledge questions (45.24% vs 74.74%, P<.001, pre- and postintervention, respectively). Students also felt more confident in their abilities to screen and follow up about FI. Additionally, compared to the control cohort, the intervention cohort screened for FI more often during their OSCE (28.21% vs 10.71%, P<.001).
Conclusion: A longitudinal curriculum using minimal curricular time can improve students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior when screening for FI. Students who received the curriculum were more likely to recognize the need for and perform FI screening. Based on these findings, we anticipate that the curriculum will increase the likelihood of students identifying, screening for, and intervening in cases of FI in future clinical encounters.