Dougherty John J, Bray Natasha N, Vanier Cheryl H
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2020 Feb 1;120(2):81-89. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2020.018.
To assess the attitudes of academic deans at colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) and chairs of COMs' osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) departments toward osteopathic recognition under the single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system.
An 11-item Likert-type survey with additional demographic questions was distributed via email to deans and OMM department chairs at 51 COMs and additional locations in September 2017. Items were formulated to assess survey participants' understanding and beliefs regarding the value and support of the establishment of osteopathic recognition within the single GME accreditation system. Demographic information gathered was limited to role (ie, dean or OMM department chair). Survey items were ranked on a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
A total of 39 COMs deans and 24 OMM chairs indicated they understood the intent of osteopathic recognition in a single GME accreditation system, but OMM chairs felt less informed about osteopathic recognition than deans (17% vs 3% disagreeing with the statement, "I have been adequately informed about osteopathic recognition"). There was no difference between deans and chairs regarding their attitudes toward osteopathic recognition in residency training programs, though a minority of deans (n=2) disagreed that osteopathic recognition benefits programs and indicated that they did not recommend it for surgical specialties (n=2) or fellowship programs (n=3). Deans and chairs generally agreed on their overall support of osteopathic recognition, the perceptions of osteopathic medical students toward osteopathic recognition, and the value that osteopathic recognition brings to COMs, with 2 deans dissenting on each item. A moderate correlation was found between information of and attitude toward osteopathic recognition for the deans (r=0.72, n=39), but a much weaker relationship was observed between information and attitude for the chairs (r=0.37, n=24) (difference between the correlations: z=1.89, P=.06).
Although the deans and OMM chairs agreed that they support, believe in the value of, and find that osteopathic medical students are interested in osteopathic recognition, there is an opportunity for improvement of deans' and COMs chairs' understanding of osteopathic recognition.
评估整骨医学院（COMs）的院长及整骨医学院整骨手法医学（OMM）系主任对单一研究生医学教育（GME）认证体系下整骨医学认可的态度。
2017年9月，通过电子邮件向51所整骨医学院及其他地点的院长和OMM系主任发放了一份包含11个李克特式问题及附加人口统计学问题的调查问卷。问题旨在评估调查参与者对在单一GME认证体系内建立整骨医学认可的价值和支持的理解与看法。收集的人口统计学信息仅限于角色（即院长或OMM系主任）。调查问题按5点李克特式量表排序，从强烈反对到强烈同意。
共有39位整骨医学院院长和24位OMM系主任表示他们理解单一GME认证体系中整骨医学认可的意图，但OMM系主任比院长感觉对整骨医学认可了解更少（17%对3%不同意“我已充分了解整骨医学认可”这一说法）。院长和系主任在住院医师培训项目中对整骨医学认可的态度上没有差异，不过少数院长（n = 2）不同意整骨医学认可对项目有益，并表示他们不推荐在外科专业（n = 2）或专科培训项目（n = 3）中采用。院长和系主任在对整骨医学认可的总体支持、整骨医学学生对整骨医学认可的看法以及整骨医学认可给整骨医学院带来的价值方面总体上达成一致，每项有2位院长持不同意见。院长对整骨医学认可的信息与态度之间存在中度相关性（r = 0.72，n = 39），但系主任的信息与态度之间的关系则弱得多（r = 0.37，n = 24）（相关性差异：z = 1.89，P = 0.06）。
尽管院长和OMM系主任一致认为他们支持、相信整骨医学认可的价值，并发现整骨医学学生对整骨医学认可感兴趣，但仍有机会提高院长和整骨医学院系主任对整骨医学认可的理解。
