内科住院医师临床表现评估中的性别差异:教员和受训者性别影响的纵向分析。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Robin Klein, Katherine A Julian, Jennifer Koch, Erin D Snyder, Simerjot Jassal, Wendy Simon, Alex Millard, Brian Uthlaut, Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie, Nneka N Ufere, Sarah Alba-Nguyen, Anna Volerman, Vanessa Thompson, Anshul Kumar, B A White, Yoon Soo Park, Kerri Palamara
{"title":"内科住院医师临床表现评估中的性别差异:教员和受训者性别影响的纵向分析。","authors":"Robin Klein, Katherine A Julian, Jennifer Koch, Erin D Snyder, Simerjot Jassal, Wendy Simon, Alex Millard, Brian Uthlaut, Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie, Nneka N Ufere, Sarah Alba-Nguyen, Anna Volerman, Vanessa Thompson, Anshul Kumar, B A White, Yoon Soo Park, Kerri Palamara","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Competency-based medical education relies on equitable assessment. This study examined the influence of faculty and trainee gender on assessments of internal medicine (IM) resident performance over time.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A longitudinal analysis of clinical performance assessments from 7 U.S. IM residency programs (July 2014-June 2019) was conducted. Core competency scores (patient care [PC], medical knowledge [MK], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], systems-based practice [SBP], professionalism [PROF], and interpersonal and communication skills [ICS]) were standardized across programs. Cross-classified mixed-effects linear regression evaluated the relationship between gender and standardized competency scores within training programs, while adjusting for multiple variables including IM In Training Examination percentile rank.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data included 9,346 evaluations by 1,011 faculty (552 [55%] men, 459 [45%] women) for 664 residents (358 [54%] men, 306 [46%] women). Initially, women residents' scores were significantly lower than men's in PC (estimated difference [standard error ] -0.097 [0.033], P = .004), MK (-0.145 [0.034], P < .001), and PBLI -0.090 [0.040], P = .022). PC, MK, PBLI, and SBP scores increased more over time for women residents than men (PC: 0.050 [0.015], P = .001; MK: 0.052 [0.015], P = .001; PBLI: 0.036 [0.018], P = .048; SBP: 0.036 [0.016], P = .027). PROF and ICS scores were comparable across gender. There was a significant interaction between faculty gender and postgraduate year (PGY) across all competencies but none between resident gender, faculty gender, and PGY, indicating that men and women faculty rated residents differently over time but were consistent in how they rated men and women residents.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gender-based assessment differences were variable across competencies and time. Women residents had lower scores initially but greater gains in \"hard skill\" (MK, PC, and PBLI) than in \"soft skill\" (ICS and PROF) competencies, suggesting assessment inequities. Efforts to ensure equitable assessment are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender Differences in Clinical Performance Assessment of Internal Medicine Residents: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Influence of Faculty and Trainee Gender.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Klein, Katherine A Julian, Jennifer Koch, Erin D Snyder, Simerjot Jassal, Wendy Simon, Alex Millard, Brian Uthlaut, Sherri-Ann M Burnett-Bowie, Nneka N Ufere, Sarah Alba-Nguyen, Anna Volerman, Vanessa Thompson, Anshul Kumar, B A White, Yoon Soo Park, Kerri Palamara\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Competency-based medical education relies on equitable assessment. This study examined the influence of faculty and trainee gender on assessments of internal medicine (IM) resident performance over time.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A longitudinal analysis of clinical performance assessments from 7 U.S. IM residency programs (July 2014-June 2019) was conducted. Core competency scores (patient care [PC], medical knowledge [MK], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], systems-based practice [SBP], professionalism [PROF], and interpersonal and communication skills [ICS]) were standardized across programs. Cross-classified mixed-effects linear regression evaluated the relationship between gender and standardized competency scores within training programs, while adjusting for multiple variables including IM In Training Examination percentile rank.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data included 9,346 evaluations by 1,011 faculty (552 [55%] men, 459 [45%] women) for 664 residents (358 [54%] men, 306 [46%] women). Initially, women residents' scores were significantly lower than men's in PC (estimated difference [standard error ] -0.097 [0.033], P = .004), MK (-0.145 [0.034], P < .001), and PBLI -0.090 [0.040], P = .022). PC, MK, PBLI, and SBP scores increased more over time for women residents than men (PC: 0.050 [0.015], P = .001; MK: 0.052 [0.015], P = .001; PBLI: 0.036 [0.018], P = .048; SBP: 0.036 [0.016], P = .027). PROF and ICS scores were comparable across gender. There was a significant interaction between faculty gender and postgraduate year (PGY) across all competencies but none between resident gender, faculty gender, and PGY, indicating that men and women faculty rated residents differently over time but were consistent in how they rated men and women residents.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Gender-based assessment differences were variable across competencies and time. Women residents had lower scores initially but greater gains in \\\"hard skill\\\" (MK, PC, and PBLI) than in \\\"soft skill\\\" (ICS and PROF) competencies, suggesting assessment inequities. Efforts to ensure equitable assessment are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"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.0000000000005884\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005884","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

摘要

目的:以能力为基础的医学教育依赖于公平的评估。本研究探讨了教师和学员性别对内科住院医师表现评估的影响:方法:对美国 7 个内科住院医师培训项目(2014 年 7 月至 2019 年 6 月)的临床表现评估进行了纵向分析。核心能力评分(患者护理 [PC]、医学知识 [MK]、基于实践的学习和改进 [PBLI]、基于系统的实践 [SBP]、职业精神 [PROF] 以及人际交往和沟通技巧 [ICS])在不同项目间进行了标准化。交叉分类混合效应线性回归评估了培训项目中性别与标准化能力得分之间的关系,同时对包括 IM 培训考试百分位数排名在内的多个变量进行了调整:数据包括1011名教师(552 [55%]名男性,459 [45%]名女性)对664名住院医师(358 [54%]名男性,306 [46%]名女性)进行的9346次评估。最初,女性住院医师的 PC(估计差异 [标准误差 ] -0.097 [0.033],P = .004)、MK(-0.145 [0.034],P < .001)和 PBLI -0.090 [0.040],P = .022)得分明显低于男性。随着时间的推移,女性住院医师的 PC、MK、PBLI 和 SBP 分数的增加幅度要大于男性(PC:0.050 [0.015],P = .001;MK:0.052 [0.015],P = .001;PBLI:0.036 [0.018],P = .048;SBP:0.036 [0.016],P = .027)。不同性别学生的 PROF 和 ICS 分数相当。在所有能力方面,教员性别与研究生年级(PGY)之间存在明显的交互作用,但住院医师性别、教员性别和研究生年级之间没有明显的交互作用,这表明随着时间的推移,男性和女性教员对住院医师的评价有所不同,但他们对男性和女性住院医师的评价是一致的:结论:基于性别的评估差异在不同的能力和不同的时间段存在差异。女性住院医师最初的得分较低,但在 "硬技能"(MK、PC 和 PBLI)方面的进步大于 "软技能"(ICS 和 PROF)方面的进步,这表明评估存在不平等。需要努力确保评估的公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender Differences in Clinical Performance Assessment of Internal Medicine Residents: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Influence of Faculty and Trainee Gender.

Purpose: Competency-based medical education relies on equitable assessment. This study examined the influence of faculty and trainee gender on assessments of internal medicine (IM) resident performance over time.

Method: A longitudinal analysis of clinical performance assessments from 7 U.S. IM residency programs (July 2014-June 2019) was conducted. Core competency scores (patient care [PC], medical knowledge [MK], practice-based learning and improvement [PBLI], systems-based practice [SBP], professionalism [PROF], and interpersonal and communication skills [ICS]) were standardized across programs. Cross-classified mixed-effects linear regression evaluated the relationship between gender and standardized competency scores within training programs, while adjusting for multiple variables including IM In Training Examination percentile rank.

Results: Data included 9,346 evaluations by 1,011 faculty (552 [55%] men, 459 [45%] women) for 664 residents (358 [54%] men, 306 [46%] women). Initially, women residents' scores were significantly lower than men's in PC (estimated difference [standard error ] -0.097 [0.033], P = .004), MK (-0.145 [0.034], P < .001), and PBLI -0.090 [0.040], P = .022). PC, MK, PBLI, and SBP scores increased more over time for women residents than men (PC: 0.050 [0.015], P = .001; MK: 0.052 [0.015], P = .001; PBLI: 0.036 [0.018], P = .048; SBP: 0.036 [0.016], P = .027). PROF and ICS scores were comparable across gender. There was a significant interaction between faculty gender and postgraduate year (PGY) across all competencies but none between resident gender, faculty gender, and PGY, indicating that men and women faculty rated residents differently over time but were consistent in how they rated men and women residents.

Conclusions: Gender-based assessment differences were variable across competencies and time. Women residents had lower scores initially but greater gains in "hard skill" (MK, PC, and PBLI) than in "soft skill" (ICS and PROF) competencies, suggesting assessment inequities. Efforts to ensure equitable assessment are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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