Better Healthcare Achievable by Collaboration Between Two Medical Schools of Thought

There are two different medical schools of thought recognized by the United States: 1) the main-stream, allopathic (M.D.) school of thought, and 2) the osteopathic (D.O.) school of thought. A bias, unfortunately, exists between the two medical philosophies. Many in the medical community, and the general public, perceive individuals with an M.D. degree to be higher in prestige than those with D.O. degrees. In order to combat this preconceived notion between M.D.s and D.O.s, both medical communities have recently announced their transition to a unified graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system, in order to ensure that all medical students, regardless of what medical school background, will be responsible and held to the same standards across the board. While this change is beneficial, I contend that more can be done to eliminate the prejudice between both medical schools of thought while improving healthcare services. I propose in this paper the potential benefit of combining the services of both a M.D. and D.O. professional in the same medical setting. This partnership could possibly assist the involvement of empathy in medical settings. A recent implosion of research has emerged in the past couple years about this concept that medicine combined with empathy and compassionate interactions can be beneficial to patient diagnosis and treatment. The public stigma, currently, is that doctors are neutral and passive toward their patients rather than empathetic and active in their approach and interactions. However, while medical students are taught to be empathetic, research has shown that some individuals are more empathy-inclined than others after medical school training. This perhaps can be caused by the fact that both philosophies educate about empathy differently and that both philosophies attract two different types of student personalities. Therefore, this paper will address three key ideas using current research and statistics: 1) a background on the two philosophies of medical education, 2) the definition and benefits of empathy in the medical field, and 3) the possibility of having both mainstream and osteopathic perspectives of medicine integrated in all sub-specialties of healthcare to improve practitioner-patient relations and improve physician mental and physical health

STEM Education Course: Enhancing K-12 Teachers\u27 Cultural Awareness Through Reflections of Socioscientific Issues

This study applied the Socioscientific Issues (SSI) framework to explore how elementary teachers navigate STEM curriculum and apply SSI following a STEM certification endorsement course. Analysis revealed a number of themes regarding shifts in teachers\u27 perceived cultural practices, indicating a substantial shift in focus for these teachers in teaching science

Contextual determinants of re-reporting for families receiving alternative response: A survival analysis in a Midwestern State

Differential response (DR) has been widely adopted in over 30 states to address shortcomings of the traditional approach to child maltreatment reports in complex family and case circumstances. However, despite continued evaluation efforts, evidence of the effectiveness of DR remains inconclusive. The current study aims to assess the impact of a DR program and potential predictors, including service match and number of family case workers, on maltreatment re-reports in a Midwestern state. The study utilized a randomized control trial and assigned eligible families to either the Alternative Response (AR) track or Traditional Response (TR) track. The enrollment was implemented in a phased rollout covering all counties in the state. Data were drawn from state child welfare administrative datasets and case worker surveys. The probability and time to re-reporting was calculated using survival analysis, while adjusting for case-level covariates. Prior ongoing case (HR = 3.24, p \u3c 0.001), high risk level (HR = 1.43, p \u3c 0.05), and having only one worker (HR = 1.92, p \u3c 0.001) serve the case were strong predictors of re-reporting. The effect of service match within each level of prior ongoing case (No, Yes) was also a significant predictor of re-reporting (p \u3c 0.05). AR had limited, but nonsignificant, impact on preventing re-reporting after adjusting for these factors, as there was no difference in terms of re-reporting between DR tracks. However, findings suggest that matching child welfare service with family needs is an important component of child welfare practice. Implications for DR policy and practice are discussed

A Meta-Analysis of Procedures to Change Implicit Measures

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures’ effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|ds| \u3c .30). Most studies focused on producing short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior. Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior