United States

Background
Asylum seekers face significant and unique healthcare challenges, requiring healthcare practitioners specifically trained in caring for this patient population. However, there is limited understanding of medical students’ interest in and future ability to care for the population of asylum seekers in the United States. We aim to better understand U.S. medical students’ interest, experience, and knowledge in providing care for asylum seekers to inspire change in the ways in which medical schools introduce asylum seeker care to learners.

Methods
A 23-question survey was administered to U.S. medical students at four institutions with asylum programs affiliated with Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) from June 2020 to March 2021, querying various aspects of providing care to asylum seekers. 

Results
Of the approximately 2846 students who received the survey, 436 students (15%) completed it in its entirety. Most respondents desired training about caring for asylum seekers (91%). Over half (52%) rated their knowledge of asylum issues overall as “poor” or “none,&quot; and 73% thought their medical school&#39;s curriculum on asylum seeker health needed improvement.

Conclusion
This study demonstrated that medical students at schools with affiliated asylum clinics desire to care for asylum patients but feel unprepared to do so, highlighting an unmet need for formal asylum education in U.S. medical schools.

AMA Research Challenge 2022

U.S. Medical Student Knowledge and Interest in Asylum Seeker Medical Care

Truth and Responsibility
“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

Many consider anthropology to be a holistic social science dedicated to cross-cultural understanding as a way to reduce bigotry and more fully comprehend “what it means to be human.” Others push against this readily circulated origin story, arguing that “human” remains a highly contested, political category—evident as the presumed set of rights and protections associated with the “human” continue to be stripped away violently in the communities in which some of us live and work. Which violent histories and epistemologies must anthropologists take responsibility for in telling truth(s) about the discipline’s development? How do the dual histories of settler colonialism and slavery continue to influence anthropological thought and practices? In these political times, how can anthropologists throughout the globe work to secure a capacious, progressive vision of the human? How might movements for anti-racism, decoloniality, queer liberation, and healing such as #BlackLivesMatter, #ProtectMaunaKea, and #MeToo push a future anthropology out of the ashes of the anthropological past? Finally, what are the limits and possibilities of the anthropological imagination?

Across subfields, we find truths in patterns of human behavior, language, evolution, and cultural worlds. Industry-positioned anthropologists do this by extending the boundaries of the discipline not as an administrative solution to job shortages but as a source of intervention and knowledge production. Increasingly, anthropologists who make use of the scientific method question how status and identity help to decide which facts come to represent truth. How might quantitative researchers use our methods to identify patterned truths, and what responsibility do we hold in challenging conventional wisdom about these patterns? What responsibility do we have to both our colleagues and larger publics, to push toward increased transparency and ethical grounding in our data collection, analysis, and presentation?

Pedagogy is a key medium for the communication of anthropological truths. Which (and whose) truths are foregrounded in our curricula? What are the possibilities for a liberatory pedagogy in a precarious, “post-truth” era? Conferences, museums, organizing spaces, and classrooms are sites where pedagogy and various forms of communication can help us interrogate the performativity of truth. How might anthropologists conceive of truth performances? Might visual, aural, and choreographic performances during AAA sessions offer anthropologists alternative genres for truth-telling and truth-making that provoke discussions about responsibility?

In accordance with the urgency of the year’s theme, the questions posed in this call for papers do not have easy answers. The hope is that those who submit proposals will take up these questions and engage in collective thinking and imagining about the truths we hold, the truths we challenge, and the responsibilities we bear in co-creating a free and more equitable world. All panel proposals should have a statement about how the panel has incorporated the goals of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and/or analysis of power.

Executive Session proposals have already been selected and speak directly to the theme “Truth and Responsibility.” To practice the critical reflexivity this call for papers invites, we asked that Executive Session submissions explicitly address the diversity of session participants, such as organizational/institutional affiliation, career stage, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, class, religion, national identity, and gender. Proposals for Executive Sessions that demonstrated a commitment to equity and inclusion and/or a clear analysis of power (i.e. anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist, decolonial, anti-ableist, feminist, anti-transphobic, anti-xenophobic, etc) were given priority. We are excited to be in conversation with residents of the Baltimore region and look forward to the discussions, performances, and actions generated by the dynamic group of anthropologists attending the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting.

AAA Annual Meeting 2021

“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

Background
Asylum seekers face significant and unique healthcare challenges, requiring healthcare practitioners specifically trained in caring for this patient population. However, there is limited understanding of medical students’ interest in and future ability to care for the population of asylum seekers in the United States. We aim to better understand U.S. medical students’ interest, experience, and knowledge in providing care for asylum seekers to inspire change in the ways in which medical schools introduce asylum seeker care to learners.

Methods
A 23-question survey was administered to U.S. medical students at four institutions with asylum programs affiliated with Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) from June 2020 to March 2021, querying various aspects of providing care to asylum seekers. 

Results
Of the approximately 2846 students who received the survey, 436 students (15%) completed it in its entirety. Most respondents desired training about caring for asylum seekers (91%). Over half (52%) rated their knowledge of asylum issues overall as “poor” or “none," and 73% thought their medical school's curriculum on asylum seeker health needed improvement.

Conclusion
This study demonstrated that medical students at schools with affiliated asylum clinics desire to care for asylum patients but feel unprepared to do so, highlighting an unmet need for formal asylum education in U.S. medical schools.

poster

Welcome to the largest national, multi-specialty research event **featuring research from 750 medical students, residents and fellows, and international medical graduates.**


#### Event Details
The 2022 American Medical Association Research Challenge includes a poster symposium hall and a semifinals hall with the top scored research. Log in at any time throughout the event to:
* **View posters and presentations** on a variety of topics and specialties
* **Score posters in the semifinals** to help decide the top five finalists (AMA member exclusive opportunity)
* **Connect with participants** and provide feedback to help advance their research

At the conclusion of this event, the AMA will announce the top five finalists who will advance to the AMA Research Challenge finals, present their research to an elite panel of judges and compete to win a $10,000 grand prize sponsored by Laurel Road.
 

#### Attend Live Forums
**Oct. 20, 6 — 7 p.m. Central**
 **How to plan a career in academic medicine** 
 Learn how to plan a career in academic medicine and get your questions answered. [Access Here](https://underline.io/events/363/lounge)
 
 **Speakers**
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/d5adb133dfc58eb0a6d469e9cedcd5d4.jpg)
Ricardo Correa, MD, EdD
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/5f9437ab87861538bf02b9ca7c0d926e.jpg)
Stuart M. Greenstein, MD
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/05b1b637c99286d558c371f8e8b185ce.jpg)
Stephanie Strohbeen, MD
 
 **Oct. 22, 11 a.m. — Noon Central**
 **How to get published**
 Learn tips to get your research published and get your questions answered. [Access Here](https://underline.io/events/363/lounge)
 
 **Speakers**
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/8ce6235e957d31cb5e6f9097cc6f6972.jpg)
Jessica Li, MD/PhD Candidate
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/9950ef2e0237f54cb3d8280334d42491.jpg)
Charles Lopresto, DO

### Sponsor
AMA would like to thank Laurel Road for sponsoring a $10,000 grand prize for the winner of the AMA Research Challenge. Laurel Road is not involved in the judging or scoring process to select the winner. The winner will be announced on Dec. 7 during the AMA Research Challenge finals. Payment of the grand prize will be directly from Laurel Road. See the AMA Research Challenge Official Rules for terms and conditions.

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/611e331d4a0eba0920f240cfc04b4d77.png)

**There is no registration fee for this event! **

Register to explore research in a variety of topics. AMA members get exclusive access to score posters in the semifinals.

**Please use the link below to register for free if you have not already done so:**

https://www.ama-assn.org/about/events/ama-research-challenge

Registration Is Required

Welcome to the largest national, multi-specialty research event featuring research from 750 medical students, residents and fellows, and international medical graduates.


Abstract Title: Urban Myths and Healthcare Disparities for Cardiovascular Care in Black Americans 

Background: Racially based cardiovascular care guidelines in the black population have been pervasive throughout clinical medicine and medical education. These guidelines have largely been based on several unproven recommendations indicating that black individuals have a genetic propensity for the development of hypertension due to chronic stress faced during the Atlantic Slave Trade. This research project aims to dispel antiquated theories regarding race and instead shed light on the importance of assessing social determinants of health (SDOH) and structural/political determinants that affect patient’s disease and outcomes. This education and awareness should begin early on in a physician’s training and continue throughout their career. 

Methods: A literature search was performed utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar with key phrases such as: “slavery hypothesis”, “cardiovascular disease in black individuals”, “salt retention in black individuals”, “eGFR in black individuals”, “hypertension racial guidelines”. There was no time frame that was exempt from the initial literature search. Exclusion criteria included exempting studies not performed within the United States. A possible limitation to this investigation was that specific studies were included such as the Jackson Heart Study, Evans County Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Study, and Charleston Heart Study rather than an extensive list of all historic studies. 

Results: The literature review revealed popularity in slavery hypotheses and natural selection theories regarding the significantly higher levels of cardiovascular disease in black individuals, especially in earlier studies conducted. There was a change in rhetoric from the initial studies completed between the 1960s and 1990s, with recent focus placed on socioeconomic status and lifetime discrimination. Other recent studies increased focus on comorbid risk while evaluating for etiologies for cardiovascular health in black americans. Recent findings have demonstrated that hypertension care in black patients should focus on racial disparities, discrimination, and societal inequities rather than innate genetic predispositions. 

Conclusion: It is critical to integrate SDOH, structural and political issues along with scientific research surrounding cardiovascular health in the black population. There is a significant need for early awareness in medical school and residency training to mitigate disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases within this population. 





Urban Myths and Healthcare Disparities for Cardiovascular Care in Black Americans

Wellness, Diversity and Inclusion Among Internal Medicine Residency Programs

Development of an Innovative Quality Improvement Curriculum for Residents and Medical Students in Anesthesia

ACLS instructor certification training as effective preparation for clinical practice

Background: The United States leads the world in incarceration, yet medical students and resident physicians rarely undergo formal training in providing care of the incarcerated patient. 
Methods: A virtual curriculum addressing issues of patient confidentiality, consent, and transitions of care was delivered in the fall of 2021. An interdisciplinary team of clinicians, a formerly incarcerated person, hospital administrators and lawyers, the local police department, and the local jail system created a didactic featuring case vignettes and a panel of a correctional medicine physician and a formerly incarcerated person. In small groups, residents discussed common areas of confusion, such as navigating the presence of an accompanying officer, patient shackling, obtaining the appropriate consent for the treatment of minors in custody, and ensuring patients will receive medications when discharged to a correctional facility. The panel featured a formerly incarcerated person who shared her experiences of receiving healthcare in the jail and prison system, including being pregnant and delivering while being incarcerated. The correctional medicine physician discussed the background of the American criminal justice system, strategies for providing patient-centered care for incarcerated patients, and potential avenues of advocacy and research. 
Results: Post-didactic surveys showed that the curriculum addressed gaps of knowledge regarding the care of the incarcerated patient, such as the structure of the American criminal justice system and the relevance of patient confidentiality laws. Furthermore, qualitative feedback analysis showed resident appreciation for hearing firsthand experiences of incarceration and health, as well as the discussion about the purpose of carceral institutions. 
Conclusion: In a time of increased attention to social inequity, residents should receive explicit training regarding the care of incarcerated patients. Medical schools and residency programs should identify opportunities to provide instruction regarding equitable care of the incarcerated patient. Educational content should also include the role physicians can play in advocating for the health and wellness of patients, including those who are incarcerated.

But What About the Cuffs? A Novel Didactic About the Care of the Incarcerated Patient

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified a gap in adequate discharge counseling for COVID-19 patients in the Emergency Department. This was due to high patient volumes and lack of patient education regarding a novel disease. Medical students were also restricted from the clinical area due to safety concerns, compromising their clinical experience. We piloted a novel program in which medical students served as virtual discharge counselors for COVID-19 patients via teleconference. We aimed to demonstrate an impact on patient care via examining the patient bounce back rate as well as assessing medical student education and experience. 

Methods: This program was piloted in a tertiary care Emergency Department. Medical student volunteers served as virtual discharge counselors. Students were trained in discharge counseling with a standardized protocol and a discharge script. Eligible patients for virtual discharge counseling were 18 years old or greater with a diagnosis of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and no impediment precluding them from participating in a telemedicine encounter. Counseling was provided via secure teleconference in the patient’s preferred language. Counseling included diagnosis, supportive care with medication dosing, quarantine instructions, return precautions, follow up, and time to ask questions. Duration of counseling was recorded and medical students were anonymously surveyed regarding their experience. 

Results: Over an 18-week period, 45 patients were counseled for a median of 20 minutes. The 72-hour ED revisit rate was 0%, versus 4.2% in similarly-matched, not counseled COVID-19 patients. 90% of medical students believed this project increased their confidence when speaking with patients while 80% indicated this was their first telemedicine experience.

Conclusion: Our pilot discharge program provided patients with an extensive discharge counseling experience that would not otherwise be possible in an urban ED setting and demonstrated benefit to patient care. Medical students received a safe clinical experience that improved their communication skills. 


Piloting a Novel Medical Student Virtual Discharge Counseling Process in the Time of COVID

Value-added medical education refers to the experiential learning of medical students to become competent clinicians. We propose applying it for training medical educators: value-added medical educator education (VAMEE). VAMEE is based on the principle of immersive learning for medical students to cultivate skills for teaching, participating in institutional-service-activities, and forming scholarly approaches for curricula development, assessment, and evaluation. Medical students can have value-added roles as student educators under faculty guidance. We present a primary-care clerkship’s student-developed/facilitated cultural humility session, made pre-COVID19 in response to our diverse patient population and LCME requirements, as an example of VAMEE. 

Student educators developed a virtual version of the session: a case-based approach with role-play in breakout rooms. Adaptations were made in response to time constraints, more engaging methods for remote use, and students’/educators’ feedback, under faculty supervision. Session participants were asked to complete pre-/post-surveys, linked through an anonymous identifier, on their confidence in addressing culturally-informed patient encounters, perceived usefulness of the session, and feedback. 

From 01/2021 to 02/2022, there were 161 pre-survey and 124 post-survey responses. Removing duplicates/incompletes yielded 99 paired-responses. Pre-session ratings were 2.7,2.9,and 2.5(scale:0-4) on students' confidence in understanding what “cultural humility” means, understanding cultural humility in primary-care, and approaching patients in a culturally-appropriate way, respectively. Post-session, averages increased to 3.2,3.4,and 3.1. A Wilcoxon-SR test was used to assess significance (mean rank=28.68,Z=-5.3,p<0.001; mean rank=29.17,Z=-5.3,p<0.001; mean rank=28.19, Z=-5.5,p<0.001, respectively). On whether students had learned something useful, responses averaged 4.8(scale:0-6). 

The adaptive potential and benefits of VAMEE were apparent when medical students enhanced faculty’s ability to quickly transform curricula with the pandemic. Results show that not only students benefit by learning from peers but also student educators who gain skills: developing/evaluating curriculum, leading small groups, and giving feedback, through this student-driven reiterative process. Further challenges in curricula are expected with the pass/fail change of Step 1 and the diverse learning needs of current student cohorts. Student educators can work with faculty to innovate educational approaches to transform physician training. Future directions include evaluating long-term impact of the session and surveying student facilitators on the effectiveness of VAMEE in developing their medical educator skills.

VAMEE: Engaging Future Medical Educators to Transform Medical Education Today 

Introduction: 
There are multiple factors that can impact a student’s success in a surgical clerkship, including preclinical curriculum and grades, previously completed clerkships, clerkship sequence and schedule, length of clerkship, work-study balance, and quality of education during the clerkship. These factors make it difficult for medical educators to assess the effectiveness of their preclinical and clinical curricula. This is the first systematic review to date that has analyzed the factors that negatively or positively influence NBME Surgery Subject Exam scores. 


Methods: 
Computer systematic literature searches of the Embase and Pubmed databases were performed. The studies included in this systematic review were papers testing variables that affect NBME subject exam performance of medical students in their third-year surgical clerkships.


Results: 
The literature search resulted in 2,823 articles, of which 17 were selected for analysis. The studies included in this review were grouped into three categories based on variables assessed: preclinical factors, third-year clerkship scheduling or structure, and surgical clerkship educational methods.
Analysis shows that the quality of medical students’ preclinical education plays a strong factor, as USMLE Step 1 scores and second-year NBME scores have a strong positive correlation with exam scores, while shortened preclinical curricula negatively impact third-year NBME exam scores. While the length of the surgery clerkship has varied significance based on multiple studies, the sequence of clerkships showed a consistent correlation with third-year NBME exam scores. Taking medicine clerkship prior to the surgery clerkship showed significant improvement in third-year NBME exam scores across multiple studies. The quality of clinical education received at clerkships is also very important; multiple studies of different educational models have shown that increased student engagement through presentations, small-group case-based learning, and direct resident interaction resulted in increased test scores. Additionally, the student-perceived educational quality along with preceptor-perceived clinical competency via clerkship evaluations and OSCE are positively correlated with NBME subject exam scores.


Conclusion: 
This systematic review looked at multiple factors that influence student success of the NBME Surgery Subject Examination and should be a useful tool for medical educators and students looking to increase NBME Surgery Subject Examination grades at their institution.


Factors Influencing NBME Surgical Shelf Exam Scores: A Systematic Review

Background
Pre-clinical medical students at our institution are trained in sterile technique by volunteer scrub technicians in a simulated operating room experience. Standardized patients (SPs) have long been recognized for their contributions to medical education, but have yet to be broadly integrated into simulations that go beyond role play scenarios, such as scrub training. Their unique skill set makes them strong candidates to lead hands on simulation-based training sessions.
Methods
Pre-clinical medical students were invited by email to sign up for one of two optional scrub training workshops in our institution’s simulation center. One session was led by a scrub technician and a senior medical student, as it has been in the past. The other training was led by specially trained standardized patients. Students were asked to complete anonymous pre and post-surveys which collected demographics, attitudes towards simulation, attitudes towards the training itself, and a brief quiz on aseptic hand hygiene. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables and t-tests were used to assess the relationship between groups. 
Results
Both the standardized patient group and the scrub tech group saw significant increases in their pre and post scores (0.7 to 0.9; p<0.01 for both groups). There was no appreciable difference when the post-scores of both groups (0.9 and 0.9) were compared to one another. Similarly, there was no significant difference between students’ perceived quality of the training nor their confidence in scrubbing in following the training (p=0.0805 and p=0.619, respectively). Overall, both groups saw a significant increase in their scrubbing confidence (p < 0.01).
Conclusion
Our results suggest that scrub training led by trained standardized patients is comparable to those led by scrub technicians. Both trainings were successful, as evidenced by increased quiz scores and increased scrubbing confidence. Importantly, learners did not perceive a qualitative difference between the two trainings. In the future, SP-led scrub training may lead to more flexibility in scheduling, and ultimately increased learner participation. Although already heavily utilized in medical education, scrub training may represent another area where SPs can meaningfully contribute.

Standardized Patients as Effective as Scrub Technicians at Scrub Training Medical Students

Abstract Title: Considerations for designing and implementing a multi-institution undergraduate medical education experience

Background: Cancer Care Experience (CCE) is an extracurricular program for undergraduate medical students to explore oncology. With the transition to virtual learning during the pandemic, program leaders offered CCE to students at Duke University School of Medicine and Penn State College of Medicine as a dual-institutional program. To our knowledge, there are few other dual-institution programs discussed in the literature, with most focusing on graduate medical education. Therefore, we aimed to assess 1) virtual learning effectiveness, 2) student perspectives on a multi-institutional model, and 3) the feasibility of implementing a multi-institutional program. 

Methods: An electronic voluntary Qualtrics survey of Likert-type statements was distributed to participants at the end of the program. Percent agreement to statements was determined and reported as a frequency. A Friedman Test (p<0.05) with post hoc analysis was conducted to assess preference for different program modalities.

Results: Seventeen (26%) students completed the voluntary survey. Students indicated that participation expanded their understanding of oncology care (100.00%) and raised their comfort in communicating bad news (88.20%). Interestingly, students felt comfortable learning on the online platform (93.80%), but few agreed that it was effective for engagement in large group sessions (37.50%). There was a statistically significant difference in preference among models of instruction (χ2(4)=38.315, p<0.001), with the multi-institution hybrid model ranked highest. Comparisons between multi-institution hybrid and single-institution in-person (Z=-2.718, p=.007), single institution virtual (Z=-3.602, p<.001), and single-institution hybrid (Z=-2.829, p=0.005) demonstrated a preference for the multi-institutional hybrid model.

Conclusion: Most students agreed that the virtual platform was convenient, engaging, and had few limitations. They agreed that a multi-institutional program was valuable and would recommend it to others. From an implementation perspective, there was a benefit of reaching more students and having access to additional faculty and resources. This approach allowed individuals from geographically distant institutions to participate, highlighting inter-institutional strengths, and facilitating broader educational and mentorship opportunities. Our study demonstrates the benefits of multi-institution programs and hopefully will encourage more collaboration in the future to host multi-institutional programs.

Premium content

Next from AMA Research Challenge 2022

Urban Myths and Healthcare Disparities for Cardiovascular Care in Black Americans

Similar lecture

Credibility, claimant-testimony, and the frame(s) of victimhood in the US asylum process

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES