Time to normalise protected characteristics in written assessments: A mixed methods study

Author:

Shepherd AdamORCID,Bott SamORCID,Abdullah Laila,Hearn Russell

Abstract

Background Despite increasing endeavours to incorporate teaching material on healthcare for minority groups into medical school curricula, including cultural competency, there is a lack of research exploring medical students' comprehension of this. With age and gender as the only demographic information routinely provided in undergraduate single best answer (SBA) questions, the diversity of patients encountered by doctors in clinical practice is not fairly represented in assessments. This study examined the impact of not declaring gender or explicitly indicating LGBT+ identities and ethnicity, on how medical students evaluate clinical scenarios through SBA questions. Methods 200 medical students across clinical years completed 15 SBA questions in an online simulated exam. Participants were randomised to control and test groups testing different types of patient demographic information in question stems. Results Linear regression modelling demonstrated overall statistically nonsignificant differences between groups. The largest effect size was seen in the LGBT+ question intervention group, which had the fewest white and postgraduate participants. Older and more senior medical students performed better generally. White participants overall significantly outperformed non-white participants; this difference was eliminated when answering a mix of question styles. Using a mix of question styles produced statistically significant differences, with participants scoring worse on LGBT+ and ethnicity style questions. Conclusion Increased depth and breadth of clinical experience enables medical students to approach clinical scenarios with more flexibility. Unfamiliarity with minority patient groups may have impacted their performance in this study. For medical education to remain contemporary in preparing future clinicians to interact with diverse patient groups, assessments need to normalise the presence of these patients.

Funder

King’s College London

Publisher

F1000 Research Ltd

Reference66 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3