Mastrogiacomo Cecilia, Preis Heidi, Patel Riya, Patil Lokesh, Swoboda Eva
is a PGY-1 Resident, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
is an Assistant Professor of Research, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, and Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
J Grad Med Educ. 2025 Jun;17(3):330-337. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-24-00711.1. Epub 2025 Jun 16.
The decision has affected postgraduate medical education training programs. However, the degree to which it impacts residency location preferences is unknown. To explore how background characteristics and psychological priming for abortion access influence medical students' residency location preferences. From October to December 2023, US medical students at all training levels completed an online survey with (primed) or without (control) information emphasizing abortion access. The survey was distributed to 14 schools and via the social media platform X. Likelihood of applying to residency in 10 selected states (representing 4 abortion legality categories) was compared between primed and control groups and based on background characteristics using bivariate analysis and linear regression. The study was completed by 282 students. Response rate was not calculated due to unknown denominator. Mean likelihood of applying to residency where abortion is legal and protected (65.5±21.8) versus unprotected (47.3±30.1), gestationally limited (37.3±24.8), and banned (24.4±21.5) significantly differed from each other (=.001). Control and primed groups did not differ in mean likelihood of applying to these legality categories (>.05). Higher likelihood was observed among men applying to "gestationally limited" (34.7±23.4 vs 42.6±26.9, <.01) and "banned" (21.5±18.2 vs 29.8±25.5, <.01) states, and among those morally opposed to abortion (gestational limit, 34.8±23.7 vs 46.7±26.7, <.001; banned, 20.5±18.4 vs 39±25.7, <.001) or uninterested in reproductive medicine (gestational limit, 39.5±25.1 vs 30.1±22.4, <.01; banned, 25.9±21.8 vs 19.2±19.7, <.05). Higher likelihood of applying to "legally protected" states was observed among democrats (69.4±18.9 vs 57.7±25.4; <.001) and fourth-year students (69.03±22.09; <.05). State preferences for residency applications were impacted by various background characteristics, but not by psychological priming.
这一决定已对研究生医学教育培训项目产生影响。然而，其对住院医师培训地点偏好的影响程度尚不清楚。为了探究背景特征和堕胎可及性的心理启动如何影响医学生对住院医师培训地点的偏好。2023年10月至12月，所有培训水平的美国医学生完成了一项在线调查，调查内容包含（启动组）或不包含（对照组）强调堕胎可及性的信息。该调查被分发给14所学校，并通过社交媒体平台X进行。使用双变量分析和线性回归，比较了启动组和对照组之间以及基于背景特征的在10个选定州（代表4种堕胎合法性类别）申请住院医师培训的可能性。该研究由282名学生完成。由于分母未知，未计算回复率。在堕胎合法且受保护的州申请住院医师培训的平均可能性（65.5±21.8）与不受保护的州（47.3±30.1）、妊娠期受限的州（37.3±24.8）和被禁止的州（24.4±21.5）之间存在显著差异（=0.001）。对照组和启动组在申请这些合法性类别的平均可能性上没有差异（>0.05）。在申请“妊娠期受限”（34.7±23.4对42.6±26.9，<0.01）和“被禁止”（21.5±18.2对29.8±25.5，<0.01）州的男性中，以及在道德上反对堕胎的人群（妊娠期受限，34.8±23.7对46.7±26.7，<0.001；被禁止，20.5±18.4对39±25.7，<0.001）或对生殖医学不感兴趣的人群（妊娠期受限，39.5±25.1对30.1±22.4，<0.01；被禁止，25.9±21.8对19.2±19.7，<0.05）中，观察到更高的申请可能性。在民主党人（69.4±18.9对57.7±25.4；<0.001）和四年级学生（69.03±22.09；<0.05）中，观察到申请“合法受保护”州的可能性更高。住院医师申请的州偏好受到各种背景特征的影响，但不受心理启动的影响。
