Gender-focused training improves leadership of female medical students: A randomised trial

Impact of gender on self-assessment accuracy among fourth-year French medical students on faculty's online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations

BACKGROUND

Historically, women have been shown to underestimate their abilities, while men often assess themselves more accurately or overestimate. This study aims to determine self-assessment accuracy during online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) according to gender.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted among fourth-year medical students at Paris Cité University during faculty training OSCEs, utilizing Zoom® software for remote participation. Students and evaluators assessed performances using 5-point Likert scales for medical knowledge, interpersonal skills, and overall performance. Additionally, students predicted their grade out of twenty. The assessment covered three independent stations.

RESULTS

This study included 259 medical students (177 women, 81 men, one non-binary (excluded from further analyses)) evaluated by 130 physicians. Evaluator scores did not differ according to students' gender (total score out of 20: men: 10.25 ± 3.45, women: 10.23 ± 3.44 p = 0.817) nor students' self-assessments (total score out of 20: men: 11.22 ± 3.02, women: 11.00 ± 3.03; p = 0.466) whatever the domains and stations (all p > 0.05). The difference (delta) between self-assessment and evaluator scores for medical knowledge (men: 0.73 ± 1.00, women: 0.64 ± 1.02; p = 0.296), interpersonal skills (men: 1.02 ± 1.06, women: 0.93 ± 1.09; p = 0.296), and total score (men: 0.98 ± 3.41, women: 0.68 ± 3.42; p = 0.296) showed no gender differences. Further analysis categorized students based on their self-assessment accuracy, revealing that both men and women displayed a high ratio of accurate self-assessments (78.1% for overall performance across all stations), with minimal overestimation observed in both genders (20.9% for overall performance across all stations). Instances of overestimation or underestimation were rare and not consistent over the 3 stations, indicating that such misjudgments are likely situational rather than inherent traits.

DISCUSSION

This study reveals similar self-assessment accuracy according to gender in online training OSCEs suggesting a shift towards gender-equitable self-perceptions among medical students compared to previous studies. Research remains necessary to corroborate these results and explore the underlying factors contributing to this shift in self-perception.

2024 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

2024 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Teaching team competencies within resuscitation training: A systematic review

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies on clinical and educational outcomes.

Methods

This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review.

Results

The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.

Conclusion

This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

How to enrich team research in healthcare by considering five theoretical perspectives

The aim of this paper is to inspire team research to apply diverse and unconventional perspectives to study team dynamics and performance in healthcare settings. To illustrate that using multiple perspectives can yield valuable insights, we examine a segment of a team interaction during a heart-surgery, using five distinct interdisciplinary perspectives known from small group research: the psychodynamic, functional, conflict-power-status, temporal, and social identity perspectives. We briefly describe each theoretical perspective, discuss its application to study healthcare teams, and present possible research questions for the segment at hand using the respective perspective. We also highlight the benefits and challenges associated with employing these diverse approaches and explore how they can be integrated to analyze team processes in health care. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses. We also point to further research avenues and highlight the benefits associated with employing these diverse approaches. Finally, we offer our own insights and opinions on the integration of these approaches, as well as the types of data required to conduct such analyses.

Translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers: A survey in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in the United Kingdom

The objective was to identify translational researchers’ training and development needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training. This cross‐sectional study involved an online questionnaire survey. The research population comprised a convenience sample of translational researchers and support staff (N = 798) affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 were men (40%). The respondents were mainly research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), and research nurses and midwives (16%). Many of the respondents had attended at least one training course in the last year (68%). Training in statistics and data analysis was the most common training received (20%). Leadership training was the most wanted training (25%). Morning was the most preferred time of training (60%). Half a day was the ideal duration of a training course (41%). The main teaching hospital site was the most preferred location of training (46%). An interactive workshop was the most favored delivery style of training (52%). Most common barriers to attending training were the lack of time (31%), work (21%) and clinical commitments (19%), and family and childcare responsibilities (14%). Some differences in training needs, preferences, and barriers were found by gender and role, though these were not statistically significant. Translational researchers want short, easily accessible, and interactive training sessions during the working day. The training needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training need to be considered while developing inclusive training programs in biomedical research settings.