Skip to main content
Download PDF

Underrepresented in medicine students’ perspectives on impactful medical education

BMC Medical Education volume 22, Article number: 904 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Exploring the perceptions of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) students about the medical education curriculum and learning environment could optimize their education outcomes. The current study delineated perceptions of URiM medical students about the unique elements and characteristics of an impactful medical education program that create a positive, supportive learning environment culture.

Methods

We conducted in-depth interviews with 15 URiM students between January 2018 and April 2018. Interviewees were recruited from an accredited medical education program in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The University is also a member of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities in the U.S. The main question that guided the study was, “What do URiM students at a Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) medical school believe would make a medical education program (MEP) impactful?” We used the grounded theory analytical approach and performed content analysis via qualitative thematic evaluation.

Results

Of 112 enrolled medical students (MS), 15 verbally consented to participation. We identified four general themes and several subthemes. The themes include 1) Grounding learning in the community; 2) Progressive system-based practice competency; 3) Social justice competency and 4) Trauma-informed medical education delivery. Theme 1 included the following subthemes (a) community engagement, and (b) student-run clinic, mobile clinic, and homeless clinic rotations. Theme 2 includes (a) interprofessional learning and (b) multidisciplinary medicine for cultivating a ‘just’ healthcare system. Theme 3 includes (a) longitudinal social justice curriculum, (b) advocacy, and (c) health disparity research. Theme 4 had the following subdomains (a) early and ongoing mentoring and (b) provision of supportive policies, services and practices to maximize learning and mental health.

Conclusion

Our learners found that social justice, trauma-informed, community-based curricula are impactful for URiM learners. These findings highlight the need for further research to assess the impact of permeating the championship culture, community cultural wealth, and transformational education in all aspects of the MEP in providing a supporting and positive learning environment for URiM students.

Peer Review reports

Background

The foundation for improving the health and safety of patients starts with training competent medical providers. American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) identifies Medical Knowledge, Patient Care, Professionalism, Communication, Practice-Based Learning and Improvement, and System-Based Practices as the six core domains that training physicians should know to achieve competence [1]. In 2020, over 20,000 medical students graduated from the U.S medical schools to initiate this process [2]. Additionally, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) acknowledge that diverse populations serve best by a diverse physician workforce [3]. The percentage of matriculated first-year Black or African American students raised by 10.5% in 2020. A similar estimate for Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin first-year students is reported at 8.6% [4]. However, as a predominately white profession [5], Blacks and Hispanics remain underrepresented in medical schools [6], graduates from medical school, and the physician workforce [6,7,8,9].

With the dramatic changes in medical education during the recent year [10], medical students’ perception as the main stakeholder in their learning environment and education outcome has received special attention. The learning environment (i.e., physical structure and services) is strongly associated with the learner’s success, achievements, satisfaction, and wellbeing [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. It is also reported that the learners’ perceptions of the educational curriculum and the learning environment may be swayed by the student characteristics, including racial diversity [18]. The underrepresented in medicine (URiM) students (i.e. students who are a part of racial/ethnic groups that are underrepresented in the physician workforce compared to their numbers in the general population), when compared to their nonwhite counterparts, experience harsher learning environment, impacting their required competencies for graduation [19,20,21]. Therefore, the URiM students’ perceptions of how to optimize their education climate and outcomes vary from their majority counterparts [3, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27].

The URiM students often choose to practice in under-resourced communities hoping to reduce the health care access and equity gap in these communities [18, 28,29,30]. Yet, empirically we know little about how to better align URiM students learning environment, educational experiences, and institutional support to optimize their success and competency from the perspective of these students [3]. The programs that offer to prepare URiM students, for the most part, reflect the perspective of the medical school and the administration [22, 31,32,33]. Our study aims to delineate URiM students’ perceptions about any unique elements of an impactful medical education program that create a positive, supportive learning environment culture. Findings from this study could benefit MEPs that aim to nurture URiM students’ educational experiences as learners, educators, researchers, and leaders, enabling them with the skills to serve under-resourced and vulnerable communities.

Methods

Design, recruitment, and participants

This qualitative study used grounded theory and non-probability purposive sampling to recruit URiM medical students. Grounded theory is a research method that enables the researcher to study distinct experiences by concurrently collecting and analyzing qualitative data from which an explanatory theory could merge [34, 35]. Purposive sampling allows the selection of participants whose insights could be most relevant to the study [35, 36].

The recruitment site was a small inner-city nonprofit university in one of the largest urban underserved areas in the United States. Only 5% of the enrolled students in the university identify as White/Caucasian. Medical students were eligible to participate in this study if they: 1) were 18 and above, 2) were enrolled in the Medical Education Program (MEP), 3) had completed the first year of the program, and 4) identified themselves as Black or African American, or Latinx (Hispanic or Latino), the group we defined as the URiM in this study. Medical students who did not meet these eligibility criteria were excluded from the study. One of the study investigators (M.M.) announced the purpose of the study and its voluntary, anonymous, and confidential nature during different clinical rotations and didactic training sites between January 2018 to April 2018. We used a purposive sampling design [35, 36] and snowball strategy to obtain “information-rich” cases and asked if participants knew individuals with similar characteristics [37, 38]. Students self-identified themselves and contacted the study investigator to schedule the interview.

Data collection

The 50 to 60-minute one-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted by one of the study investigators (M.M.), who was trained to keep the conversation on track, generate lively and productive dialogue, and obtain balanced input from the interviewees. She first welcomed each participant, introduced the purpose of the interview, and reminded them that negative comments are as helpful as positive comments and that the interview session would be tape-recorded. Participants were assured that information discussed during the interview would remain confidential, and all the subsequent reports would be anonymized. Subsequently, the interviewer responded to all the study-related questions and began the one-on-one in-depth interview.

The main question that guided the study was, “What do URiM students at a Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) medical school believe would make a medical education program (MEP) impactful?” Probing questions include 1) What elements, resources and/or characteristics would give such a program a competitive advantage and allow it to fulfill its unique mission, i.e., to serve the underserved, under-resourced community; 2) how could that program position itself to best prepare URiM for underserved populations? The study received ethical approval from the university Institutional Review Board (IRBNet # 1821981–1).

Qualitative analysis

Data was collected and analyzed iteratively, as described by Glaser and Strauss [39]. We transcribed tape-recorded conversations verbatim after each interview. We inserted relevant field notes using qualitative analysis software NVivo (Version 12). To conduct thematic analysis and augment data saturation [40], transcripts were read independently by research team members. They looked for common themes and sub-themes within responses for each question. To achieve this, they segmented the data into meaningful analytical units or phrases, marked the segment with descriptive words (coding) and generated a list of the codes (code list) to reapply to new segments of data [41, 42]. Once the initial coding was completed for all segments of the transcribed text, the contents were compared and discussed among the reviewers to achieve consensus regarding to the best themes for organizing the data [41, 42]. Narrow themes were condensed into broader, general ones based on similarities and differences. Then the relationship among general themes and their value in identifying important thematic domains through interview discussions were considered. As recommended in the literature, two independent reviewers outside the study team were assigned to randomly select sections of the transcripts. They followed the process to verify identified codes and themes. Subsequently, coding and thematic issues were discussed, and any disagreement was resolved [37, 43, 44].

Study creditability

Provisions were made to ensure the triangulation process during data collection and analysis to enhance the credibility of the findings [37, 43, 45]. For example, multiple individuals within and external to the research team, including participants, checked and verified the trustworthiness of the results [46]. They were charged with making sure that all nuances of data were well reflected in the coding and in the selection and categorization of the themes. To guard against researchers’ reflexivity [47], i.e., “researcher’s positionality” (page 678) [48] and ensure the provision of impartial results, the research team members, including the authors in this study, had received training on implicit bias. The implicit bias training informs researchers to be attentive to unconscious thoughts that prompt one to look for findings that fit one’s pre-existing beliefs [48]. Therefore, their feedback and perspectives were considered trustworthy and reliable and enhanced the credibility of data analysis and results. The research team came from different disciplines and had experience conducting qualitative research; therefore, they were highly qualified. The team included two URiM students, a physician, and a medical sociologist.

Results

Of 112 enrolled medical students (MS), a total of 15 URiM students consented to participation. These individuals participated in a 50 to 60- minutes one-on-one-in-depth interview in April 2018. The student breakdown is as follows: MS2 (n = 2), MS3 (n = 8), MS4 (n = 5). All the participants in the study self-identified as Black or Latinx, and the majority were females, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Participants information (n = 15)
Full size table

Emergent themes and subthemes

Our content analysis of URiM students’ perceptions of an impactful MEP yielded four general themes and nine subthemes, as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2 Content analysis themes and subthemes
Full size table

Theme 1 (subthemes): grounding learning in the community (community engagement; student-run clinic; Mobile clinic; homeless clinic)

As described in Table 3, the community was noted as an extension of the family and a source of building professional meaning and purpose. Students argued that impactful MEP values build, and strengthen the shared cultural and social capital between URiM students and their community. They described that learning about and engaging with the local community via hot spot mapping activities, clinical rotations, and service-learning activities such as student-run clinics, mobile clinics, and homeless clinics would empower them to build professional competency in the context of the community. (See students’ quotes in Table 3).

Table 3 Themes, subthemes, and participants related quotes
Full size table

Theme 2 (the subtheme): progressive system-based practice competency (Interprofessional learning; multidisciplinary medicine for cultivating a ‘just’ healthcare system)

Students believed an impactful MEP would enrich their interprofessional and interdisciplinary experiences. They valued simulation and problem-based learning. They expressed that learning with students from other disciplines such, as nursing and physician’s assistant, builds camaraderie would improve their knowledge and skills in working effectively and efficiently as a team for better patient outcomes. They also expressed that trips, locally and abroad, would build professional competency with the community and nurture a global mindset to better address health disparities. URiM students endorsed learning about medicine beyond the medical model. They suggested that doctoring sessions during the pre-clinical year are ideal to expose students to social science faculty (for example, sociology, anthropology, health policy) in discussion around social context /biopsychosocial approach to disease (Table 3).

Theme 3 (subthemes): social justice competency (longitudinal social justice curriculum; advocacy; health disparity research)

The general sentiment of the participants was that an impactful MEP would weave social justice competency training into the entire medical education curriculum. As reflected by the students (Table 3), the longitudinal social justice curriculum should begin pre-clinical years to integrate public health issues, racism and other structural prejudice into the discussion of pathophysiology or the physiology of a certain organ system. They further advised it to be a required part of the curriculum. Additionally, students believed that advocacy and health disparity research training would empower them to promote data-informed change (Table 3).

Theme 4 (subthemes): trauma-informed medical education delivery (early and ongoing mentoring & provision of supportive, policies, services and practices to maximize learning and mental health)

Students expressed the desire to have mentors, especially having the opportunity of having a long-term mentoring relationship. A common belief among students was that mentorship ideally should be started as early as possible, with mentors from various levels of experience, and the relationship should be maintained throughout their medical education. Participants also felt that an impactful MEP would advocates and encompass a trauma-informed approach. For example, provide anxiety prep instead of exam preparedness. They valued having support/professional staff that would understand the multitude of factors that contribute to downgrading academic performance (i.e., financial/familial issues). Additionally, they argued in favor of financial aid services, tuition scholarships and having dedicated time for personal counselling or group discussion on issues that burdens/tax URiM students (for example., racism, sexism, and oppression) (Table 3).

Discussion

Our qualitative study highlights four general themes reflecting URiM students’ perceptions regarding the impactful components of an MEP.

1st. Grounding learning in the community

By virtue of being HBCU students, our participants expressed that an impactful MEP is poised to ground the entire curriculum in a community-driven mission with familial feelings. They believed these values could be realized by exposing students to diverse community-based rotation sites for exposure to different vulnerable patient populations. The concept of community cultural wealth [49] affirms that once learning is grounded in the community with familial culture, it supplies students with deeper insight into the clinical concern, diagnosis and clinical management [50]. Additionally, community-engaged service-learning pedagogy nurtures students’ social responsibility attitude and commitment to serve and mitigate health disparities of the underserved and under-resourced communities. It is suggested that a medical education cognizant of “community as teachers” [51] is more likely to graduate physicians who behave ethically and professionally and deliver culturally effective care [51,52,53].

2nd. Progressive system-based practice competency

Our findings reveal that the multidisciplinary and interprofessional learning approach is impactful because it teaches the language of the local and global healthcare system [5, 54,55,56,57]. A view that supports the goals of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) standards [58]. Multidisciplinary and interprofessional collaboration build on the cooperative practice between a team of providers and a patient, leading to a decision that is informed by the patient’s social determinants of health [59, 60]. As reported, medicine is a team service profession where team members need to know their role in different disciplines [61] to refine their coordinated-care management skills and the delivery of safe and quality patient care [62,63,64]. Indeed, the existing experiential education in MEPs provides the opportunity for students from different disciplines to interact, collaborate and coordinate care [59]. .However, by virtue of their diversity and intrinsic social responsibility, to deliver equitable services, our medical students argued that the system-based practice teaching should be fused with conversation around the political, institutional, and social aspects of the health and health care delivery system. A conversation that falls short in” professionalism” and “system-based practice” competencies [65] and could plant seeds for questioning the current approach to system-based practice in healthcare and encourage a progressive version of this competency [66].

3rd. Social justice competency

According to our findings, social justice curriculum in a medical education program would increase its impactful utility by nurturing the URiM students’ social-justice attitude and skills to remedy sources of health disparity. These findings echo others who believe in incorporating structural competency in the medical education curriculum to prepare future medical providers to address injustices in healthcare delivery systems [65, 67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Proponents of this approach believe that physicians should be trained to understand the structural and social determinants of health through a theoretical lens to eradicate health inequality [57, 65, 74]. Others suggest that the structural competency rotations have successfully linked theory with practice, making it possible for the students/residents to work with communities-based organizations to actively reshape the inequitable healthcare landscape [57, 75, 76].

Additionally, the URiM students’ endorsement of health disparity research underlines their commitment to empirically validate the structural and social factors that determine the health of the underserved, under-resourced and vulnerable populations. The notion of creating a culture of inquiry by conducting research during medical education is reflected in the number of institutions providing protected time for the students to conduct independent or mentor-guided research (i.e., 65 medical schools in 2017–2018) [77, 78] Others contend that medical education that provides research training advances their students’ professional pathway, as well as the “health of the patients and communities they serve.” [10, 79, 80] Physician-scientists are better positioned to intervene within their setting, leveraging the evidence for advocacy and demonstrating structural competency [73, 75, 81].

4th. Trauma-informed program delivery

Our findings suggest that an impactful MEP would be committed to thriving URiM students by providing an ongoing culturally congruent mentorship and implementing supportive policies and practices. Mentorship has increased medical students’ career satisfaction, retention, research productivity, self-efficacy, and career development [6, 82, 83]. Establishing early and ongoing relationships with mentors with similar strengths, experiences, and cultural wealth mitigates the stress and anxiety associated with being the first in the family to finish college and the apprehension of a high-stress learning environment [3, 83,84,85].

Moreover, as reflected in our findings, others have validated the importance of supportive policies, services, and practices in the MEP [86] to buffer minority students’ additional stressors such as the minority tax [87], hidden curriculum [88], impostor syndrome [89], and mental health stressors [26, 90]. .As a result, our findings suggest that a genuinely impactful medical education program would be cognizant of these barriers and root causes and consider the trauma-informed MEP program to thrive for its students [26, 86].

Limitations

Our research approach has limitations, including a lack of generalizability to other URiM students in other medical schools. Still, it offers a range of insights which would be challenging to explore based on quantitative analysis. For example, amid systemic racism’s deleterious effects on URiM students and their future career goals [28], our approach allowed participants to focus on uplifting insights, reflections, and experiences that are not often told [91]. Furthermore, our study builds problem identification to describe solutions. For example, the URiM students view curricula on social justice as an essential component of medical education and provide solutions to mitigate the effects of racism in medical education.

Nonetheless, the methods used to collect data in the study allow for possible confirmation bias or social desirability. However, to minimize this limitation, the medical student interviewer was trained to balance the power dynamic, stay task-oriented, and obtain well-rounded input [92]. Additionally, to safeguard against Hawthorn or observer effect (i.e., a threat to internal validity), the interviewer assured participants of the anonymity and confidentiality of their participation and responses in the final report.

Conclusions

In summary, the URiM students perceived an MEP as impactful when it 1) integrates learning with community engagement; 2) targets progressive system-based practice competency; 3) builds social justice competency, and 4) delivers trauma-informed medical education. Our findings reinforce the significance of understanding the values of cultivating championship culture [93], investing in community cultural wealth [49], and aiming for a transformational MEP that is aligned with the URiM students’ goal of serving and advocating for their communities while maximizing their mental health and minimizing the minority tax. Cultivating a championship culture could help students build a strong and meaningful sense of belonging and relationship with their peers, staff, and faculty, building trust and transparency in all aspects of their education and performance. Additionally, an MEP that approaches students of color from the community cultural wealth lens, i.e., students who possess cultural capital, could better relate and communicate with them to transform the learning environment and maximize their professional and personal growth potentials. In light of the current health, economic, and racial injustice pandemics, the MEPs should invest in identifying strategies and resources needed to actualize values that support and provide a positive learning environment for URiM students. Our findings could shed some light on that direction and guide decision-makers in improving their curriculum. Further research is needed to address these issues with a larger number of URiM students. Additionally, research is required to assess the impact of permeating the championship culture, community cultural wealth, and transformational education in all aspects of the MEP in providing a supportive and positive learning environment for URiM students.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are fully available without restriction and from the time of publication. The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding author (SHB). The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

References

  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education A. Guidance Statement on Competency-Based Medical Education during COVID-19 Residency and Fellowship Disruptions 2022. Available from: https://www.acgme.org/newsroom/2020/9/guidance-statement-on-competency-based-medical-education-during-covid-19-residency-and-fellowship-disruptions/.

    Google Scholar 

  2. AAMC. 2020 FACTS: Enrollment, Graduates, and MD-PhD Data Online: AAMC; 2021. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/interactive-data/2020-facts-enrollment-graduates-and-md-phd-data

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dickins K, Levinson D, Smith SG, Humphrey HJ. The minority student voice at one medical school: lessons for all? Acad Med. 2013;88(1):73–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayya S, Roff S. Students′ perceptions of educational environment: a comparison of academic achievers and under-achievers at kasturba medical college, India. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2004;17(3):280–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barceló NE, Shadravan S. Race, metaphor, and myth in academic medicine. Acad Psychiatry. 2021;45(1):100–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonifacino E, Ufomata EO, Farkas AH, Turner R, Corbelli JA. Mentorship of underrepresented physicians and trainees in academic medicine: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36:1023–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Association of American Medical Colleges. Diversity in medicine: facts and figures 2019. Washington DC. 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/report/diversity-medicine-facts-and-figures-2019. Accessed 16 Sept 2021.

  8. Lett E, Murdock HM, Orji WU, Aysola J, Sebro R. Trends in racial/ethnic representation among US medical students. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9):e1910490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Capers QIV, Clinchot D, McDougle L, Greenwald AG. Implicit racial Bias in medical school admissions. Acad Med. 2017;92(3):365–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Buja LM. Medical education today: all that glitters is not gold. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan DS. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in assessing hospital learning environments. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38(4):447–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Till H. Identifying the perceived weaknesses of a new curriculum by means of the Dundee ready education environment measure (DREEM) inventory. Med Teach. 2004;26(1):39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pimparyon SMC, Pemba SS, Roff P. Educational environment, student approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing school. Med Teach. 2000;22(4):359–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown T, Williams B, Lynch M. The Australian DREEM: evaluating student perceptions of academic learning environments within eight health science courses. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Genn JM. AMEE medical education guide no. 23 (part 1): curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education-a unifying perspective. Med Teach. 2001;23(4):337–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abraham R, Ramnarayan K, Vinod P, Torke S. Students’ perceptions of learning environment in an Indian medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Litmanen T, Loyens SMM, Sjöblom K, Lonka K. Medical Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning Environment. Well-Being and Academic Self-Concept Creative Education. 2014;5:1856–68.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sánchez JP, Peters L, Lee-Rey E, Strelnick H, Garrison G, Zhang K, et al. Racial and ethnic minority medical students’ perceptions of and interest in careers in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Andriole DA, Jeffe DB. Prematriculation variables associated with suboptimal outcomes for the 1994-1999 cohort of US medical school matriculants. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1212–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Richardson DA, Becker M, Frank RR, Sokol RJ. Assessing medical students' perceptions of mistreatment in their second and third years. Acad Med. 1997;72(8):728–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Frierson HT Jr. Black medical students' perceptions of the academic environment and of faculty and peer interactions. J Natl Med Assoc. 1987;79(7):737–43.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Agrawal JR, Vlaicu S, Carrasquillo O. Progress and pitfalls in underrepresented minority recruitment: perspectives from the medical schools. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005;97(9):1226–31.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bright CM, Duefield CA, Stone VE. Perceived barriers and biases in the medical education experience by gender and race. J Natl Med Assoc. 1998;90(11):681–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Strayhorn G, Frierson H. Assessing correlations between black and white students' perceptions of the medical school learning environment, their academic performances, and their well-being. Acad Med. 1989;64(8):468–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lempp H, Seale C. Medical students’ perceptions in relation to ethnicity and gender: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Odom KL, Roberts LM, Johnson RL, Cooper LA. Exploring obstacles to and opportunities for professional success among ethnic minority medical students. Acad Med. 2007;82(2):146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sedlacek WE, Prieto DO. Predicting minority students' success in medical school. Acad Med. 1990;65(3):161–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Phelan SM, Burke SE, Cunningham BA, Perry SP, Hardeman RR, Dovidio JF, et al. The effects of racism in medical education on Students' decisions to practice in underserved or minority communities. Acad Med. 2019;94(8):1178–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ko M, Edelstein RA, Heslin KC, Rajagopalan S, Wilkerson L, Colburn L, et al. Impact of the University of California, Los Angeles/Charles R. Drew University medical education program on medical students' intentions to practice in underserved areas. Acad Med. 2005;80(9):803–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goodfellow A, Ulloa JG, Dowling PT, Talamantes E, Chheda S, Bone C, et al. Predictors of primary care physician practice location in underserved urban or rural areas in the United States: a systematic literature review. Acad Med. 2016;91(9):1313–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Strayhorn G. A pre-admission program for underrepresented minority and disadvantaged students: application, acceptance, graduation rates, and timeliness of graduating from medical school. Acad Med. 2000;75(4):355–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cantor JC, Bergeisen L, Baker LC. Effect of an intensive educational program for minority college students and recent graduates on the probability of acceptance to medical school. JAMA. 1998;280(9):772–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Giordani B, Edwards AS, Segal SS, Gillum LH, Lindsay A, Johnson N. Effectiveness of a formal post-baccalaureate pre-medicine program for underrepresented minority students. Acad Med. 2001;76(8):844–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cristancho SM, Goldszmidt M, Lingard L, Watling C. Qualitative research essentials for medical education. Singap Med J. 2018;59(12):622–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research: theory, method and applications. London: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Routledge; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5:147–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Eriksson C. Focus groups and other methods for increased effectiveness of community intervention: a review. Scand J Prim Health Care Suppl. 1988;1:73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Polit D, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal, and utilization. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358(9280):483–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Buetow S. Apophenia, unconscious bias and reflexivity in nursing qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;89:8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dodgson JE. Reflexivity in qualitative research. J Hum Lact. 2019;35(2):220–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mitchell J, Boettcher-Sheard N, Duque C, Lashewicz B. Who do we think we are? Disrupting notions of quality in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(4):673–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yosso TJ. Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethn Educ. 2005;8(1):69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Landry AM. Integrating health equity content into health professions education. AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(3):229–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sidelinger DE, Meyer D, Blaschke GS, Hametz P, Batista M, Salguero R, et al. Communities as teachers: learning to deliver culturally effective care in pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4 Suppl):1160–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Veyvoda M, Van Cleave TJ, Olson L. Service-learning in allied health education: developing ethical practitioners through community-engaged teaching and learning, Civil society and social responsibility in higher education: international perspectives on curriculum and teaching Development: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Boon K, Turner J. Ethical and professional conduct of medical students: review of current assessment measures and controversies. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(2):221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Elam CL, Sauer MJ, Stratton TD, Skelton J, Crocker D, Musick DW. Service learning in the medical curriculum: developing and evaluating an elective experience. Teach Learn Med. 2003;15(3):194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Batalden PB, Leach DC. Sharpening the focus on systems-based practice. J Grad Med Educ. 2009;1(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Negrete Manriquez JA, Bazargan-Hejazi S, Nahm SJ, de Virgilio C. Exploring a novel approach to surgery clerkship didactics during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Am J Surg. 2021:662–69.

  57. Castillo EG, Isom J, DeBonis KL, Jordan A, Braslow JT, Rohrbaugh R. Reconsidering systems-based practice: advancing structural competency, health equity, and social responsibility in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2020;95(12):1817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Medicine Io. In: Cuff PA, Vanselow N, editors. Improving medical education: enhancing the behavioral and social science content of medical school curricula. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bridges DR, Davidson RA, Odegard PS, Maki IV, Tomkowiak J. Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education. Med Educ Online. 2011;16. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035.

  60. Way D, Jones L, Busing N. Implementation strategies: collaboration in primary care—family doctors & nurse practitioners delivering shared care. Toronto: Ontario College of family physicians; 2000. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lumague M, Morgan A, Mak D, Hanna M, Kwong J, Cameron C, et al. Interprofessional education: the student perspective. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(3):246–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Iroku-Malize T, Matson C, Freeman J, McGrew M, David A, Committee AET. Interprofessional education. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):188–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Behrend R, Czeskleba A, Rollinger T, Petzold M, Roa Romero Y, Raspe R, et al. Medical students' ratings of the relevance and actual implementation of interprofessional education and preferences for teaching formats: comparison by gender and prior education. GMS. J Med Educ. 2020;37(2):Doc13.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Johnson JK, Miller SH, Horowitz SD. Advances in patient safety systems-based practice: improving the safety and quality of patient care by recognizing and improving the systems in which we work. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches (Vol 2: culture and redesign). Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hixon AL, Yamada S, Farmer PE, Maskarinec GG. Social justice: the heart of medical education. Soc Med. 2013;7(3):161–8.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Drake SM, Reid JL. 21st century competencies in light of the history of integrated curriculum. Front Educ. 2020;5:122. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bourgois P, Holmes SM, Sue K, Quesada J. Structural vulnerability: operationalizing the concept to address health disparities in clinical care. Acad Med. 2017;92(3):299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Holm AL, Rowe Gorosh M, Brady M, White-Perkins D. Recognizing privilege and Bias: an interactive exercise to expand health care Providers' personal awareness. Acad Med. 2017;92(3):360–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ambrose AJH, Andaya JM, Yamada S, Maskarinec GG. Social justice in medical education: strengths and challenges of a student-driven social justice curriculum. Hawai'i J Med Public Health. 2014;73(8):244–50.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Neff J, Holmes SM, Knight KR, Strong S, Thompson-Lastad A, McGuinness C, et al. Structural competency: curriculum for medical students, residents, and Interprofessional teams on the structural factors that produce health disparities. MedEdPORTAL. 2020;16:10888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Shim RS. Dismantling structural racism in academic medicine: a skeptical optimism. Acad Med. 2020;95(12):1793–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lucey CR, Saguil A. The consequences of structural racism on MCAT scores and medical school admissions: the past is prologue. Acad Med. 2020;95(3):351–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Atkinson S, Cottam B. How doctors can close the gap: tackling the social determinants of health. Clin Med (Lond). 2011;11(1):57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Reich AD, Hansen HB, Link BG. Fundamental interventions: how clinicians can address the fundamental causes of disease. J Bioeth Inq. 2016;13(2):185–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hansen H, Braslow J, Rohrbaugh RM. From cultural to structural competency—training psychiatry residents to act on social determinants of health and institutional racism. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(2):117–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Metzl JM, Hansen H. Structural competency: theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality. Soc Sci Med. 2014;103:126–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Chen JX, Kozin ED, Sethi RK, Remenschneider AK, Emerick KS, Gray ST. Increased resident research over an 18-year period: a single Institution’s experience. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153(3):350–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Liaison Committee on Medical Education L. Research Requirement for Medical Students 2022 Available from: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/curriculum-reports/interactive-data/research-requirement-medical-students.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Laidlaw A, Aiton J, Struthers J, Guild S. Developing research skills in medical students: AMEE guide no. 69. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):754–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lawson PJ, Smith S, Mason MJ, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC, Werner JJ, et al. Creating a culture of inquiry in family medicine. Fam Med. 2014;46(7):515–21.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Andermann A, Collaboration C. Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals. CMAJ. 2016;188(17–18):E474–E83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ulloa JG, Viramontes O, Ryan G, Wells K, Maggard-Gibbons M, Moreno G. Perceptual and structural facilitators and barriers to becoming a surgeon: a qualitative study of African American and Latino surgeons. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1326–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wyatt GE, Belcher HM. Establishing the foundation: culturally congruent mentoring for research scholars and faculty from underrepresented populations. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89(3):313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Hess L, Palermo AG, Muller D. Addressing and Undoing Racism and Bias in the Medical School Learning and Work Environment. Acad Med. 2020;95:S44–s50 (12S Addressing Harmful Bias and Eliminating Discrimination in Health Professions Learning Environments).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, Boone S, Tan L, Sloan J, et al. Burnout among U.S. medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):443–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Brown T, Berman S, McDaniel K, Radford C, Mehta P, Potter J, et al. Trauma-informed medical education (TIME): advancing curricular content and educational context. Acad Med. 2021;96(5):661–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Walters M, Alonge T, Zeller M. Impact of COVID-19 on medical education: perspectives from students. Acad Med. 2022;97(3S):S40–S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Jay M. Critical race theory, multicultural education, and the hidden curriculum of hegemony. Multicult Perspect. 2003;5(4):3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Bravata DM, Watts SA, Keefer AL, Madhusudhan DK, Taylor KT, Clark DM, et al. Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(4):1252–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Bazargan-Hejazi S, Dehghan K, Chou S, Bailey S, Baron K, Assari S, et al. Hope, optimism, gratitude, and wellbeing among health professional minority college students. J Am Coll Heal. 2021;69:1–9.

  91. Solorzano DG, Yosso TJ. Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. Int J Qual Stud Educ. 2001;14(4):471–95.

  92. Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15(3):263–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Janssen J, Brandon D. How to build and sustain a championship culture: your 10-step blueprint to build a winning culture of commitment, accountability, and ownership2015; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to acknowledge the support of the medical students in the Class of 2018 who generously gave us their time and shared their perspectives.

Funding

This research was supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) Grant Number UL1TR001881.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, 1731 E. 120th St, Los Angeles, CA, 90059, USA

    Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi, Jose A. Negrete Manriquez, Monique McDermoth-Grimes, Elisabeth Alexandra Parra & Deborah Prothrow-Stith

  2. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi, Jose A. Negrete Manriquez & Elisabeth Alexandra Parra

  3. College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA

    Monique McDermoth-Grimes

Authors
  1. Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose A. Negrete Manriquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monique McDermoth-Grimes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisabeth Alexandra Parra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deborah Prothrow-Stith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi - Drafting the manuscript, interpreting the data, and leading the completion of the manuscript. Jose A. Negrete Manriquez - Critical interpretation of the data and revision of the manuscript. Monique McDermoth - Study design; data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript revision. Elisabeth Alexandra Parra - Critical review, data interpretation, and manuscript revision. Deborah Prothrow-Stith - Study concept and design, acquisition, critical interpretation of data, and manuscript revision. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from the Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science; (IRBNet # 1821981–1). We obtained written informed consent from the participants. We also confirm that all methods were performed by the relevant guidelines and regulations or the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bazargan-Hejazi, S., Negrete Manriquez, J.A., McDermoth-Grimes, M. et al. Underrepresented in medicine students’ perspectives on impactful medical education. BMC Med Educ 22, 904 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03983-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03983-7

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us