Experiences of Rural and Metropolitan Background Applicants in Preparing for and Completing a Regionally Focused Multiple Mini-interview for Admission into a Regional Medical Program.
Journal
Education for health (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1469-5804
Titre abrégé: Educ Health (Abingdon)
Pays: India
ID NLM: 9607101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2023
01 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
07
07
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
22
12
2023
pubmed:
22
12
2023
entrez:
22
12
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To better target rural background and rurally interested applicants during medical school admission, it is increasingly common for rural medical programs to include multiple mini-interview (MMI) scenarios designed to screen for rural interest. It remains unclear whether the inclusion of regionally/rurally focused MMI scenarios positively impacts the selection of rural background applicants and evidence is limited regarding why rural background applicants may perform worse on the MMI. Therefore, this study explored how rural and metropolitan applicants prepare for and perceive the MMI for admission to a regional medical pathway. A mixed-methods survey was sent to provisional entry regional pathway medical school applicants who had completed an MMI. The survey was distributed before any offers of admission had been released. Rural applicants spent less time and money preparing for the MMI and felt less prepared (P < 0.05). However, time and money spent, and resources used to prepare were not associated with feeling more prepared (all P > 0.05). Respondents mostly felt that the MMI process aligned with their expectations (83%), is fair (64%), and helps a rural program select the most suitable applicants (61%). Rural applicants generally felt that they had an advantage over other applicants (61%) while most metropolitan applicants did not (23%; P = 0.002). Applicants to a regional medical pathway are generally supportive of the MMI process. It appears valuable for applicants to prepare for the MMI by understanding the format and requirements; however, investing substantial time and money does not underpin feeling better prepared. MMI scenarios which include a regional focus are perceived to advantage rural applicants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To better target rural background and rurally interested applicants during medical school admission, it is increasingly common for rural medical programs to include multiple mini-interview (MMI) scenarios designed to screen for rural interest. It remains unclear whether the inclusion of regionally/rurally focused MMI scenarios positively impacts the selection of rural background applicants and evidence is limited regarding why rural background applicants may perform worse on the MMI. Therefore, this study explored how rural and metropolitan applicants prepare for and perceive the MMI for admission to a regional medical pathway.
METHODS
METHODS
A mixed-methods survey was sent to provisional entry regional pathway medical school applicants who had completed an MMI. The survey was distributed before any offers of admission had been released.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Rural applicants spent less time and money preparing for the MMI and felt less prepared (P < 0.05). However, time and money spent, and resources used to prepare were not associated with feeling more prepared (all P > 0.05). Respondents mostly felt that the MMI process aligned with their expectations (83%), is fair (64%), and helps a rural program select the most suitable applicants (61%). Rural applicants generally felt that they had an advantage over other applicants (61%) while most metropolitan applicants did not (23%; P = 0.002).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Applicants to a regional medical pathway are generally supportive of the MMI process. It appears valuable for applicants to prepare for the MMI by understanding the format and requirements; however, investing substantial time and money does not underpin feeling better prepared. MMI scenarios which include a regional focus are perceived to advantage rural applicants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38133127
doi: 10.4103/efh.efh_190_23
pii: 00060794-202336030-00005
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
116-122Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Education for Health.
Références
Wilson IG, Roberts C, Flynn EM, Griffin B. Only the best:Medical student selection in Australia. Med J Aust 2012;196:357.
Sen Gupta TK, Murray RB, Ray RA. Only the best:Medical student selection in Australia. Comment. Med J Aust 2012;196:683–4.
Ellaway RH, Malhi R, Bajaj S, Walker I, Myhre D. A critical scoping review of the connections between social mission and medical school admissions:BEME guide no. 47. Med Teach 2018;40:219–26.
. Tracking Universal Health Coverage:2023 Global Monitoring Report Geneva World Health Organization and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 2023.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Medical Workforce 2011. Cat no HWL 54 Canberra, ACT Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014.
Laven G, Wilkinson D. Rural doctors and rural backgrounds:How strong is the evidence?A systematic review. Aust J Rural Health 2003;11:277–84.
McGirr J, Seal A, Barnard A, Cheek C, Garne D, Greenhill J, et al. The Australian rural clinical school (RCS) program supports rural medical workforce:Evidence from a cross-sectional study of 12 RCSs. Rural Remote Health 2019;19:4971.
O'Sullivan BG, McGrail MR. Effective dimensions of rural undergraduate training and the value of training policies for encouraging rural work. Med Educ 2020;54:364–74.
Fuller L, Beattie J, Versace V. Graduate rural work outcomes of the first 8 years of a medical school:What can we learn about student selection and clinical school training pathways?. Aust J Rural Health 2021;29:181–90.
Wilson NW, Couper ID, De Vries E, Reid S, Fish T, Marais BJ. A critical review of interventions to redress the inequitable distribution of healthcare professionals to rural and remote areas. Rural Remote Health 2009;9:1060.
Poole P, Shulruf B. Shaping the future medical workforce:Take care with selection tools. J Prim Health Care 2013;5:269–75.
Henry JA, Edwards BJ, Crotty B. Why do medical graduates choose rural careers?. Rural Remote Health 2009;9:1083.
Ali S, Sadiq Hashmi MS, Umair M, Beg MA, Huda N. Multiple mini-interviews:Current perspectives on utility and limitations. Adv Med Educ Pract 2019;10:1031–8.
Pau A, Chen YS, Lee VK, Sow CF, De Alwis R. What does the multiple mini interview have to offer over the panel interview?. Med Educ Online 2016;21:29874.
Humphrey S, Dowson S, Wall D, Diwakar V, Goodyear HM. Multiple mini-interviews:Opinions of candidates and interviewers. Med Educ 2008;42:207–13.
Razack S, Faremo S, Drolet F, Snell L, Wiseman J, Pickering J. Multiple mini-interviews versus traditional interviews:Stakeholder acceptability comparison. Med Educ 2009;43:993–1000.
Kumar K, Roberts C, Rothnie I, du Fresne C, Walton M. Experiences of the multiple mini-interview:A qualitative analysis. Med Educ 2009;43:360–7.
Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, Hays R, Bates J, Hassell AB. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs:A BEME systematic review:BEME Guide No. 37. Med Teach 2016;38:443–55.
Raghavan M, Martin BD, Burnett M, Aoki F, Christensen H, Mackalski B, et al. Multiple mini-interview scores of medical school applicants with and without rural attributes. Rural Remote Health 2013;13:2362.
Lambe P, Waters C, Bristow D. Do differentials in the support and advice available at UK schools and colleges influence candidate performance in the medical school admissions interview?A survey of direct school leaver applicants to a UK medical school. Med Teach 2013;35:731–9.
Griffin B, Horton GL, Lampe L, Shulruf B, Hu W. The change from UMAT to UCAT for undergraduate medical school applicants:Impact on selection outcomes. Med J Aust 2021;214:84–9.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15:1277–88.
Puddey IB, Mercer A, Playford DE, Pougnault S, Riley GJ. Medical student selection criteria as predictors of intended rural practice following graduation. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:218.
Reiter HI, Lockyer J, Ziola B, Courneya CA, Eva K. Canadian Multiple Mini-Interview Research Alliance (CaMMIRA) Should efforts in favor of medical student diversity be focused during admissions or farther upstream?Acad Med 2012;87:443–8.