Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Minnesota, 55905, Rochester, United States of America.
The Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics, The Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Jun 26;21(1):356. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02793-7.
Initiatives employing medical students' volunteerism and idealism, such as the Student-Run Free Clinics (SRFC) program, are prevalent in US medical schools. Many studies evaluated various aspects of volunteering, sometimes resulting in conflicting evidence. This study simultaneously sought to identify the characteristics of volunteers vs. non-volunteers, and to characterize the volunteers' perception of the SRFC.
We administered a survey to the Long School of Medicine (LSOM) Class of 2018 before their third year of medical school. The authors compared and contrasted the findings of the SRFC volunteers with their non-volunteering counterparts by analyzing their demographics, volunteering history, academic performance, and clinical skills. The volunteers were also asked about their SRFC experiences.
While most volunteers were female (62 %) and non-traditional students (67 %), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.15 and p = 0.38, respectively). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in measures of academic performance (p = 0.25). Most of the volunteers learned about the SRFC program prior to starting medical school. Further, while SRFC volunteers were more likely to engage in additional local volunteering initiatives, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.03, prespecified α= 0.006). Importantly, volunteers agreed/strongly agreed that SRFC volunteering emphasized aspects that were missing or underemphasized in the formal medical school curriculum.
Medical students' age, gender, undergraduate major, and non-traditional status were not statistically different between volunteers vs. non-volunteers. However, there may be tendencies for volunteers to be female, non-traditional, and locally engaged. Further, the timing of knowledge of the SRFC program may not affect student involvement in the SRFC, either. Most importantly, however, while volunteering does not affect the students' academic performance, it may provide improvements in clinical competencies.
在美国医学院校中，像学生经营的免费诊所（SRFC）计划这样利用医学生的志愿精神和理想主义的举措很普遍。许多研究评估了志愿服务的各个方面，有时会得出相互矛盾的证据。本研究同时试图确定志愿者与非志愿者的特征，并描述志愿者对 SRFC 的看法。
我们在医学生三年级前向 LSOM 2018 级医学生发放了一份调查。作者通过分析他们的人口统计学、志愿服务历史、学术表现和临床技能，比较和对比了 SRFC 志愿者和非志愿者的发现。志愿者还被问到他们的 SRFC 经历。
虽然大多数志愿者是女性（62%）和非传统学生（67%），但差异没有统计学意义（p=0.15 和 p=0.38，分别）。此外，两组在学术表现方面没有统计学差异（p=0.25）。大多数志愿者在开始医学院学习之前就了解了 SRFC 项目。此外，虽然 SRFC 志愿者更有可能参与额外的当地志愿服务活动，但差异没有统计学意义（p=0.03，预先设定的α=0.006）。重要的是，志愿者同意/强烈同意 SRFC 志愿服务强调了正式医学院课程中缺失或强调不足的方面。
志愿者与非志愿者在年龄、性别、本科专业和非传统身份方面没有统计学差异。然而，志愿者可能有女性、非传统和本地参与的倾向。此外，对 SRFC 项目的了解时间可能不会影响学生参与 SRFC 的情况。然而，最重要的是，虽然志愿服务不会影响学生的学术表现，但它可能会提高临床能力。
