How to address health misinformation? Using focus groups to understand the experience and needs of Interprofessional undergraduate health professionals

The Problem of Health Misinformation Students from six different health professions share ideashttps://knowledgeconnection.mainehealth.org/lambrew-retreat-2023/1020/thumbnail.jp

Equipping Health Professions Educators to Better Address Medical Misinformation

As part of a cooperative agreement with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Federal Award Identification Number [FAIN]: NU50CK000586), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) began a strategic initiative in 2022 both to increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and to address medical misinformation and mistrust through education in health professions contexts. Specifically, the AAMC solicited proposals for integrating competency-based, interprofessional strategies to mitigate health misinformation into new or existing curricula. Five Health Professions Education Curricular Innovations subgrantees received support from the AAMC in 2022 and reflected on the implementation of their ideas in a series of meetings over several months. Subgrantees included the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, the Maine Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, and the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. This paper comprises insights from each of the teams and overarching observations regarding the challenges and opportunities involved with leveraging health professions education to address medical misinformation and improve patient health

Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum: An individual participant data meta‐analysis

OBJECTIVES: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. METHODS: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. CONCLUSION: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently

Power Reimagined: Advancing Women into Emerging Leadership Positions

Academic medicine is evolving from the traditional model of a medical school and teaching hospital owned by the same entity to one with complex academic medical centers and health systems. This increased complexity is evident not only in the funding streams and organizational priorities of these growing health systems but also in the evolution of leadership roles toward more matrixed positions and more individuals who hold both medical school and health system roles. Given this changing landscape, the authors of this commentary raise the following questions: Will the levers of power remain in the hands of those in traditional academic roles? Or are they moving toward those in roles that are more aligned with the clinical enterprise and health system? Then, if this shift is occurring, what is needed to prepare women to be competitive candidates for these new roles? Because of the long history of and current gender imbalance in academic leadership roles, professional development programs have traditionally focused on preparing women to advance through the faculty ranks and for department chair and decanal roles. With the shift to more complicated health systems, the definitions, responsibilities, and types of leadership roles in academic medicine are also evolving to include non-traditional academic positions in the health system, such as c-suite and other senior executive roles. In parallel to the gender inequities in traditional roles, women are also underrepresented in health system leadership roles. Therefore, it is critical to explicitly identify emerging roles in health care leadership, address systemic barriers, and actively train and prepare women with the knowledge, skills, and experience required for these positions. Only with consistent attention to outcomes and the implementation of intentional systems to engage, prepare, and advance women will the gender gap be closed

Satisfaction of Women Faculty in Academic Medicine

Research about academic medicine women faculty has focused on comparisons of men and women or specific groups who achieved leadership. To better understand the low percentages of women in academic medicine leadership, attention should be paid to the career continuum within genders. Study findings will inform policies and programs to support women in building careers and acquiring leadership positions. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey data are used to describe and compare women assistant, associate and full professors\u27 perceptions of (1) career development and advancement opportunities, and (2) a culture and climate that fosters diversity, equity, and inclusion. Specific similarities and differences with men are highlighted. Fifty-nine percent of women respondents were assistant, 25% associate, and 16% full professors. Associate professors of both genders were the least satisfied on the main measures. Women were less satisfied than men at each career stage across the majority of variables. Among women, fewer than half of full and associate professors, and 52% of assistant professors believe they can express their opinions without fear of retribution. While the majority at all ranks (69%-75%) report feeling respected in the workplace, among those who did not, the highest percentage of disrespect based on gender was among associate professors. The perceptions of \u3e7,500 academic medicine women faculty, representing different generations and ranks, underscore the need to broadly address gender inequity and sexism throughout the career continuum. It identifies the mid-career stage as a challenging experience for both men and women. Women, especially at the associate professor rank, remain a critically dissatisfied and underresourced group that is at risk for underutilization and potentially exit from academic medicine. All ranks of women need career development and equitable policies to support their sense of belonging and career advancement