Trainee advocacy for medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: a sequential mixed methods analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Medical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. METHODS: In 2022-23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: "Utilizing Trainee Feedback" related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); "Inclusion" related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and "Obstacles", "Catalysts", and "Sustainability" related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5). CONCLUSIONS: Trainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.