Am I Disadvantaged? How Applicants Decide Whether to Use the Disadvantaged Status in the American Medical College Application Service

Distance travelled: The road remains unclear

@jzaraterod discusses Ellsworth et al's exploration of how "distance travelled" does (and could) influence medical school admissions by highlighting areas where greater illumination is required.

Medical students' perception of their 'distance travelled' in medical school applications

INTRODUCTION

Within medical school's holistic review of applicants includes a review of their distance travelled to get to this point in their education. The AAMC defines distance travelled (DT) as, 'any obstacles or hardships you've overcome to get to this point in your education or any life challenges you've faced and conquered'. What medical students consider as their distance travelled has not been explored. The authors sought to identify the factors medical students perceive are important for medical school admissions to consider when assessing someone's 'distance travelled' by asking current medical students to share their DT experiences along with the barriers and facilitators they encountered on their medical school journey.

METHODS

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with US medical students through purposeful sampling methods. The social-ecological model framework was used to develop questions to elicit participants' experiences that contributed to their distance travelled. Interviews were conducted in 2021 and ranged from 60-75 minutes. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively analysed using interpretive description.

RESULTS

A total of 31 medical students from seven medical schools were included in the study. Overall, participants defined distance travelled as an applicant's hardships (e.g. being the primary caregiver for a family member) and privileges (e.g. having physician parents) they experienced. Three major themes were identified: (1) individual-level characteristics and factors, (2) interpersonal relationships and (3) aspects of the participants' community and society.

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that medical school applicants considered DT to be a valuable component of a holistic medical school admission process. Participants' experiences of DT were varied and complex. Our research suggests that admissions teams for medical schools should incorporate more comprehensive recruitment practices and inclusive methodological frameworks to accurately capture the diversity of identities and experiences of medical school applicants and to consider the factors that shape their journey to medical schools.

Association of applicant demographic factors with medical school acceptance

BACKGROUND

Medical school acceptance rates in the United States (US) have been lower for applicants who identify as Underrepresented-in-Medicine (UiM) compared to non-UiM applicants. The gap between UiM and no-UiM groups is narrowing in recent years. Less well-studied are associations of acceptance decisions with family income and parental education. This study's purpose is to evaluate the relationships between medical school acceptance and family income, parental education status, racial/ethnic background, Grade Point Average (GPA), Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score, and participation in extracurricular activities.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of first-time US medical school applicants between 2017 and 2020. Acceptance rates for first-time applicants were calculated for first-generation (FG), low-income (LI), and UiM applicants. Associations of these attributes with MCAT scores, science GPAs, and seven categories of extracurricular activities were evaluated. Regression analyses estimated associations between acceptance to medical school with all variables with and without interaction terms (FG*URM, LI*URM, FG*LI).

RESULTS

The overall acceptance rate for first-time applicants from 2017-2020 was 45.3%. The acceptance rates among FG, LI and UiM applicants were 37.9%, 39.6% and 44.2%, respectively. In univariable logistic regression analyses, acceptance was negatively associated with being FG (OR: 0.68, CI: 0.67-0.70), LI (OR: 0.70, CI: 0.69-0.72), and UiM (OR: 0.95, CI: 0.93-0.97). In multivariable regression, acceptance was most strongly associated with science GPA (OR: 7.15, CI: 6.78-7.54 for the highest quintile) and UiM (OR: 5.56, CI: 5.48-5.93) status and MCAT score (OR: 1.19, CI: 1.18-1.19), FG (OR: 1.14, CI: 1.10-1.18), and most extracurricular activities. Including interaction terms revealed a negative association between acceptance and LI (OR:0.90, CI: 0.87-0.94) and FG was no longer significant (OR:1.10, CI:0.96-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively these results suggest medical school admissions committees may be relying on holistic admission practices. While MCAT and GPA scores continue to predict acceptance, individuals from racially and ethnically UiM backgrounds have favorable odds of acceptance when controlling for MCAT and GPA. However, these positive associations were not seen for low-income and first-generation applicants. Additional preparation for college and the MCAT for these latter groups may help further diversify the medical profession.

Modeling the social determinants of resilience in health professions students: impact on psychological adjustment

Stressors inherent to training and stemming from the learning environment are associated with high rates of burnout, depression, and mental health problems in health professions students (HPS). There is evidence that disadvantaged or stigmatized groups are particularly affected. These problems not only impact students after graduation but may also have detrimental effects on patient outcomes. Resilience, conceptualized as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, has inspired an increasing number of interventions aimed at addressing those problems in HPS. These interventions have mostly targeted individual students and their psychological traits while ignoring social and structural factors that may enhance or undermine individual resilience. To address this gap in the literature, the authors reviewed the evidence for psychosocial determinants of resilience and proposed a model inspired by the social determinants of health literature and the "upstream-downstream" metaphor. In this theoretical paper, the authors propose that upstream determinants such adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic and sociodemographic markers of disadvantage have a direct effect on psychological adjustment and an indirect effect mediated by resilience. Additionally, the authors propose that the institutional downstream drivers of learning environment, social support, and sense of belonging moderate the direct and indirect effects of the upstream determinants on psychological adjustment. Future research should test these hypotheses and gather evidence that may guide the development of interventions. The authors present their model as part of a comprehensive response to recent calls to action to address diversity, equity and inclusion in health professions education.

Self-Reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review

PURPOSE

This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application.

METHOD

Data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demographic characteristics, and work status and residence. Fifteen applicants from the 2020 and 2021 AMCAS cycles were interviewed about their experiences with the SRD question.

RESULTS

Large effects were found for SRD applicants with fee assistance waivers ( h = 0.89), Pell grants ( h = 1.21), state or federal aid ( h = 1.10), and parents with less education ( h = 0.98) and non-SRD applicants with a large proportion of their education paid by family ( d = 1.03). Another large difference was found for reported family income distribution (73% of SRD applicants reporting family income < $50,000 vs 15% of non-SRD applicants). More SRD applicants were Black or Hispanic (26% vs 16% and 5% vs 5%), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (11% vs 2%), born outside the United States (32% vs 16%), and raised in a medically underserved area (60% vs 14%). There was a moderate effect for first-generation to college SRD applicants ( h = 0.61). SRD applicants had lower Medical College Admission Test scores ( d = 0.62) and overall and science grade point averages ( d = 0.50 and 0.49, respectively) but no meaningful differences in acceptance or matriculation rates. The interviews identified 5 themes: (1) unclear disadvantage definition; (2) different perceptions of disadvantage and overcoming challenges or obstacles ; (3) identification as disadvantaged or not; (4) SRD essay content; and (5) concerns about lack of transparency in how the SRD question is used in admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Revising the SRD question by including context, phrasing, and instructions for broader experience categories might be beneficial because of lack of transparency and understanding.