An official website of the United States government
Background:Early surgical exposure and research fellowships can influence medical students’ specialty choice, increase academic productivity, and impact residency match. However, to our knowledge, there is no published guidance on the programmatic evaluation and quality enhancement necessary for the sustainability of formal plastic surgery summer research programs for first year medical students. We present seven years (2013–2020) of institutional experience in an effort to inform program development at other institutions. Methods:From 2013 to 2016, a sole basic science research arm existed. In 2017, a clinical research arm was introduced, with several supplemental activities, including surgical skills curriculum. A formalized selection process was instituted in 2014. Participant feedback was analyzed annually. Long-term outcomes included continued research commitment, productivity, and residency match. Results:The applicant pool reached 96 applicants in 2019, with 85% from outside institutions. Acceptance rate reached 7% in 2020. With adherence to a scoring rubric for applicant evaluation, good to excellent interrater reliability was achieved (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.75). Long-term outcomes showed that on average per year, 28% of participants continued involvement in departmental research and 29% returned for dedicated research. Upon finishing medical school, participants had a mean of 7 ± 4 peer-reviewed publications. In total, 62% of participants matched into a surgical residency program, with 54% in integrated plastic surgery. Conclusions:A research program designed for first year medical students interested in plastic surgery can achieve academic goals. Students are provided with mentorship, networking opportunities, and tools for self-guided learning and career development.
more »
« less
Opportunities and Barriers to Rural Telerobotic Surgical Health Care in 2021: Report and Research Agenda from a Stakeholder Workshop
Background: There are well-recognized challenges to delivering specialty health care in rural settings. These challenges are particularly evident for specialized surgical health care due to the lack of trained operators in rural communities. Telerobotic surgery could have a significant impact on the rural-urban health care gap, but thus far, the promise of this method of health care delivery has gone unrealized. With the increasing adoption of telehealth over the past year, along with the maturation of telecommunication and robotic technologies over the past 2 decades, a reappraisal of the opportunities and barriers to widespread implementation of telerobotic surgery is warranted. Here we report the outcome of a rural telerobotic stakeholder workshop to explore modern-day issues critical to the advancement of telerobotic surgical health care. Materials and Methods: We assembled a multidisciplinary stakeholder panel to participate in a 2-day Rural Telerobotic Surgery Stakeholder Workshop. Participants had diverse expertise, including specialty surgeons, technology experts, and representatives of the broader telerobotic health care ecosystem, including economists, lawyers, regulatory consultants, public health advocates, rural hospital administrators, nurses, and payers. The research team reviewed transcripts from the workshop with themes identified and research questions generated based on stakeholder comments and feedback. Results: Stakeholder discussions fell into four general themes, including (1) operating room team interactions, (2) education and training, (3) network and security, and (4) economic issues. The research team then identified several research questions within each of these themes and provided specific research strategies to address these questions. Conclusions: There are still important unanswered questions regarding the implementation and adoption of rural telerobotic surgery. Based on stakeholder feedback, we have developed a research agenda along with suggested strategies to address outstanding research questions. The successful execution of these research opportunities will fill critical gaps in our understanding of how to advance the widespread adoption of rural telerobotic health care.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2025814
- PAR ID:
- 10322198
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Telemedicine and e-Health
- ISSN:
- 1530-5627
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This project develops a new, multi-method approach to Health Co-Inquiry. In health and mental health care and research, there are efforts toward person-centered and fully integrated care, along with carefully conducted research studies that can foster evidence-based practice. Health Co- Inquiry happens when person-centeredness, integrated care, and evidence-based practice are combined with collaboration between all stakeholders (including activation of persons with illness, caregivers, and health and mental health providers). In receipt of a grant from the National Science Foundation for institutional technological improvements in data collection, a research protocol was developed for pulling in large amounts of stakeholder information from online sources. The process includes focused online searches for URLs; developing computer code to search data from URLs for specific content; and researcher analysis of content for global themes. Safeguards include removing stakeholder monikers from quoted narratives and seeking stakeholder consent to quote them if a URL is accessed via a password. Online Health Support: Activating Health Co-Inquiry Keywords: Health Co-Inquiry, patient-activation, person-centered, integrated care, evidence-based practicemore » « less
-
Abstract Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.more » « less
-
ImportanceLarge language models (LLMs) can assist in various health care activities, but current evaluation approaches may not adequately identify the most useful application areas. ObjectiveTo summarize existing evaluations of LLMs in health care in terms of 5 components: (1) evaluation data type, (2) health care task, (3) natural language processing (NLP) and natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, (4) dimension of evaluation, and (5) medical specialty. Data SourcesA systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed for studies published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024. Study SelectionStudies evaluating 1 or more LLMs in health care. Data Extraction and SynthesisThree independent reviewers categorized studies via keyword searches based on the data used, the health care tasks, the NLP and NLU tasks, the dimensions of evaluation, and the medical specialty. ResultsOf 519 studies reviewed, published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024, only 5% used real patient care data for LLM evaluation. The most common health care tasks were assessing medical knowledge such as answering medical licensing examination questions (44.5%) and making diagnoses (19.5%). Administrative tasks such as assigning billing codes (0.2%) and writing prescriptions (0.2%) were less studied. For NLP and NLU tasks, most studies focused on question answering (84.2%), while tasks such as summarization (8.9%) and conversational dialogue (3.3%) were infrequent. Almost all studies (95.4%) used accuracy as the primary dimension of evaluation; fairness, bias, and toxicity (15.8%), deployment considerations (4.6%), and calibration and uncertainty (1.2%) were infrequently measured. Finally, in terms of medical specialty area, most studies were in generic health care applications (25.6%), internal medicine (16.4%), surgery (11.4%), and ophthalmology (6.9%), with nuclear medicine (0.6%), physical medicine (0.4%), and medical genetics (0.2%) being the least represented. Conclusions and RelevanceExisting evaluations of LLMs mostly focus on accuracy of question answering for medical examinations, without consideration of real patient care data. Dimensions such as fairness, bias, and toxicity and deployment considerations received limited attention. Future evaluations should adopt standardized applications and metrics, use clinical data, and broaden focus to include a wider range of tasks and specialties.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Sustainability of the scientific enterprise requires being able to recruit, retain, and prepare ongoing generations of PhD-trained scientists ready to adapt with the evolving needs of the scientific workforce and society. This necessitates a broadened, trainee-centered view in doctoral and postdoctoral training—including a prominent focus on career planning, science across sectors, and development of professional skills. Although there is energy and movement to enhance graduate and postdoctoral training, actions remain disparate, leading to inefficiencies in implementation and lack of systemic change. In 2019, an emerging national initiative, Professional Development Hub (pd|hub), hosted a workshop to bring organizations and individuals together across stakeholder groups to discuss enhancing the development, dissemination, and widespread implementation of evidence-based practices for STEM graduate and postdoctoral education, with specific emphasis on career and professional development for PhD scientists. The fifty workshop participants represented nine key stakeholder groups: career development practitioners, scientific societies, disseminators, education researchers and evaluators, employers of PhD scientists, funders, professional associations, trainees, and university leaders and faculty. In addition, participants spanned different races, ethnicities, genders, disciplines, sectors, geographic locations, career stages, and levels of institutional resources. This report presents cross-cutting themes identified at the workshop, examples of stakeholder-specific perspectives, and recommended next steps. As part of the collective effort to develop a foundation for sustainable solutions, several actions were defined, including: incentivizing change at institutions and programs, curating and disseminating resources for evidence-based career and professional development educational practices, expanding evidence for effective training and mentoring, establishing expectations for STEM career and professional development, and improving communication across all stakeholders in STEM PhD education. Furthermore, the report describes national-level actions already moving forward via pd|hub in the months following the workshop. Building on a decade of reports and gatherings advocating for a shift in graduate and postdoctoral education, this workshop represented a key step and catalyst for change toward a more impactful future.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2021.0378
