Content uploaded by Jennifer Talbott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Talbott on Oct 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 1
Research article Open Access
Understanding the Sex-Based Professional
Development Priorities of Medical Students: Results
from a novel self-assessment survey tool
Jennifer Talbott[1], Brittany Foley[1], Juliana Kling[2], Molly Kraus[2],
Lopa Misra[2], Heidi Kosiorek[2], Elisabeth Lim[2], Bhavika Patel[2]
Corresponding author: Ms Jennifer Talbott talbott.jennifer@mayo.edu
Institution: 1. Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2. Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
Categories: Curriculum Planning, Educational Strategies, Students/Trainees, Continuing Professional
Development, Curriculum Evaluation/Quality Assurance/Accreditation
Received: 31/05/2020
Published: 22/10/2020
Abstract
Introduction: A novel survey tool was created in order to compare the professional development priorities of
medical students by sex and year in training and to medical school faculty.
Method: An electronic survey was developed and emailed to all first and second year medical students and medical
school faculty across two campuses. Students ranked seven professional development needs and eight career
development events in order of priority. Faculty ranked items based on what they thought would be priorities for
medical students. Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests were used for all comparisons.
Results: 65/200 (33%) students and 78/224 (35%) faculty responded. All students ranked future career planning as
highest priority and financial planning as lowest priority. Students were most likely to attend career development
events and least likely to attend social events. Males ranked networking (p<0.01) higher than females. Male and
female faculty rankings and faculty vs. student rankings were not entirely consistent.
Discussion: A novel survey tool was created which is easy to implement and analyze. Results imply sex-based
differences in professional development priorities in early medical training. This survey tool can be used to address
disparities in female student professional development and provide a more tailored experience for all medical
students.
Keywords: Medical students; undergraduate medical education; professional development; gender; survey
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 2
Introduction
In 2018, more women than men matriculated into medical school for the first time in history (Travis, 2018). Larger
numbers of women entering medicine, however, has not translated to equal number of women and men in leadership
positions (Bickel et al., 2002; Travis, 2018). For example, in 2018 at academic medical institutions only 22.8% of
women physicians were full professor, 15% were permanent chair, and 16% of dean positions were held by women
(Association of American Medical Colleges, 2017; Lautenberger et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2018).
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) 2002 committee report on women leadership in academic
medicine proposed that the scarcity of women leaders could be attributed to "constraints of traditional gender roles,
manifestations of sexism in the medical environment, and lack of effective mentors" (Association of American
Medical Colleges, 2017). To address the scarcity, the committee report recommended a multifactorial approach
including evaluating development of female faculty, attracting more female candidates, financially supporting
Women in Medicine programs in medical schools, and targeting the professional development needs of women
(Bickel et al., 2002). Some medical schools and societies are already attempting to address women’s leadership
development through such strategies, including the American Medical Women’s Association, the Association of
Women Surgeons, the AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS), and medical school campus-
organized women in medicine support groups (Carr et al., 2017; Faucett et al., 2017).
However, for institutions wishing to implement a peer mentorship program there is little research on best practices
or standardized guidelines. There is even less research on which aspects of peer mentorship groups students
prioritize and how needs may differ by sex and year of training (Meschitti and Smith, 2017). Our goal was to
quantitatively assess the professional development priorities of medical students through the development and
administration of an online survey. We hypothesize men and women will have different professional development
priorities in medical school, which may also differ by year in school. Additionally, medical school faculty may have
differing views of what professional needs are most important to medical students. These results can inform peer
mentorship programs to provide a more tailored experience based on year and sex.
Methods
Survey Development
A literature review with the assistance of a medical librarian did not reveal any published questionnaires which
assessed the professional development needs of medical students. However, two previously published surveys were
identified which focused on professional development and mentorship of faculty and residents (Colón-Emeric,
Bowlby and Svetkey, 2012; Gaetke-Udager et al., 2018). The first survey was published by Gaetke-Udager et al. in
the American Journal of Radiology in 2018. The purpose of their survey was to evaluate trainee satisfaction with a
Women in Radiology mentorship group and the events hosted by this group. The variety of events hosted by this
group was used to inform the creation of our ‘Professional Development Events’ list (Gaetke-Udager et al., 2018).
The second survey, published in 2012 in Medical Teacher by Colon-Emeric et al., asked 66 faculty from different
backgrounds to prioritize lists of unmet professional needs and peer-mentoring activities (Colón-Emeric, Bowlby
and Svetkey, 2012). The most highly ranked ten professional development needs and seven peer-mentoring group
activities reported in their analysis were used as the basis for the needs and events categories in our survey. Some of
the language for the needs and themes was adjusted to be more relevant to medical students (Supplementary File
1). A team of medical students and medical school faculty with different levels of teaching experience reviewed all
survey items for language and relevance.
Data collection
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 3
The final survey was generated on a privacy-compliant REDcap server and sent in September of 2018 to the emails
of all first and second year students on the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine campuses in both Arizona and
Minnesota (with a total class size of 200), as well as to all faculty involved in medical education at the Arizona and
Minnesota campuses. Both the admissions process and curriculum are the same across schools and both campuses
are accredited under the same Liaison Committee on Medical Education credential. Lists of faculty including deans,
professors, interest group leaders, and designated academic advisors were provided by the Office of Academic
Affairs on both campuses. An email reminder was automatically generated for all participants with an incomplete
questionnaire and sent weekly for a total of three weeks. All surveys and scripts were approved by the Mayo Clinic
Institutional Review Board. Consent for each participant was gathered at the beginning page of each survey. No
personal identifiers were collected in the survey, and all emails were deidentified from survey results.
The student survey consisted of a list of eight professional development needs and seven professional development
events. Demographics were also collected including age, sex, race, ethnicity, year in school, marital status, and
number of children. Students were asked the following two questions: 1) "What professional development needs are
not being fully met, or would you like to see enhanced? (ranked in order of importance or need)" and 2) "Please
rank your interest in attending the following professional development events from most to least important." All
professional needs rankings had values ranging from 1 to 7. Professional events had values ranging from 1 to 8.
The faculty survey asked respondents to prioritize what they believed were the most important needs for medical
students to consider: 1) Thinking about current medical students’ education, what professional development needs
are not being fully met, or should be enhanced? and 2) Please rank how interested you believe medical students
would be in attending the following events.
Analysis plan
Demographic variables were summarized by student and faculty responses. Continuous variables were summarized
by median (range) and categorical variables by frequency distribution. We compared rankings between students and
faculty by use of Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests. Similarly, rankings were compared by sex and academic year
for students. We analyzed data with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC). A p-value <0.05 was considered
statistically significant.
Results/Analysis
Demographics of respondents
The student response rate was 33% (65/200), and they were predominantly Caucasian, aged 20-25, and unmarried.
Fifty percent of student respondents were women. One respondent had children. Faculty response rate was 34.8%
(78/224), and they were predominantly Caucasian, married, and with children. Forty-three percent of faculty
respondents were women. A summary of demographics is included in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of survey student, faculty demographics at dual Mayo Clinic Sites, 2019
Students Faculty
Minnesota
N = 26
Arizona
N = 39
Total
N = 65
Minnesota
N = 40
Arizona
N = 38
Total
N = 78
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 4
Rank N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Medical Student,
First Year
12 (18.46) 11 (16.92) 23 (35.38) --- --- ---
Medical Student,
Second Year
14 (21.54) 28 (43.08) 42 (64.62) --- --- ---
Age
20-25 20 (30.77) 23 (35.38) 43 (66.15) --- --- ---
25-30 5 (7.69) 11 (16.92) 16 (24.62) 1 (1.32) 1 (1.32) 2 (2.63)
31-40 1 (1.54) 5 (7.69) 6 (9.23) 14 (18.42) 9 (11.84) 23 (30.26)
41-50 --- --- --- 11 (14.47) 10 (13.16) 21 (27.63)
51-60 --- --- --- 10 (13.16) 7 (9.21) 17 (22.37)
60+ --- --- --- 3 (3.95) 10 (13.16) 13 (17.11)
Race
Caucasian 18 (27.69) 25 (38.46) 43 (66.15) 27 (34.62) 20 (25.64) 47 (60.26)
Other 8 (12.31) 14 (21.54) 22 (33.85) 13 (16.67) 18 (23.08) 31 (39.74)
Do you have a
partner/are you
married?
No 20 (30.77) 29 (44.62) 49 (75.38) 4 (5.26) 6 (7.89) 10 (13.16)
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 5
Yes 6 (9.23) 10 (15.38) 16 (24.62) 35 (46.05) 31 (40.79) 66 (86.84)
Do you have
children?
No 26 (40.0) 39 (60.0) 65 (100.0) 7 (9.09) 9 (11.69) 16 (20.78)
Yes --- --- --- 32 (41.56) 29 (37.66) 61 (79.22)
Caption: Table 1 demonstrates the homogeneity in demographics of the students across Arizona and Minnesota
samples, and compares student demographics to faculty demographics.
Faculty samples were combined across Minnesota and Arizona campuses. When stratified by sex and professional
rank statistically significant differences were seen between professional development priorities and events.
Statistically significant differences in responses were not seen between academic years of students. Results for
students are summarized in Table 2 and 3.
Table 2: Results of completed professional needs survey at dual Mayo Clinic sites, by
student sex and overall rank, 2019
Sex (Medical students only) Professional Rank
Female
(N=31)
Male
(N=31)
Total
(N=62) P-value Physician/Scientist
(N=71)
Student
(N=62)
Total
(N=133) P-value
Finding and working
effectively
with a mentor/mentee
0.051 0.401
Mean (SD) 4.6 (2.00) 5.5 (1.61) 5.1 (1.86) 4.7 (2.12) 5.1
(1.86)
4.8
(2.01)
Median 566 5 6 6
Research skills (grant
writing,
management, budget,
methods)
0.561 <.011
Mean (SD) 4.7 (1.92) 4.5 (1.75) 4.6 (1.82) 3.6 (1.75) 4.6
(1.82)
4.1
(1.84)
Median 555 4 5 4
Future Career
Planning/Development 0.751 0.021
Mean (SD) 5.5 (1.55) 5.4 (1.76) 5.5 (1.65) 4.6 (1.92) 5.5
(1.65)
5.0
(1.84)
Median 666 5 6 5
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 6
Presentation Skills
Training
(writing, speaking)
0.681
0.071
Mean (SD) 3.4 (1.67) 3.6 (1.59) 3.5 (1.62) 4.0 (1.72) 3.5
(1.62)
3.7
(1.68)
Median 333 4 3 4
Academic/Studying Skills 0.181 <.011
Mean (SD) 3.2 (1.56) 2.7 (1.51) 2.9 (1.55) 4.1 (2.06) 2.9
(1.55)
3.6
(1.92)
Median 333 4 3 3
Financial Planning (loans,
house
buying)
0.541 0.241
Mean (SD) 2.5 (1.84) 2.7 (1.60) 2.6 (1.71) 3.0 (1.97) 2.6
(1.71)
2.8
(1.86)
Median 222 2 2 2
Work-life Balance 0.451 0.581
Mean (SD) 4.0 (1.91) 3.7 (2.07) 3.9 (1.98) 4.0 (1.99) 3.9
(1.98)
4.0
(1.98)
Median 434 4 4 4
1Exact Kruskal-Wallis p-value;
Caption: Table 2 reports the mean and median ranking scores for each of the seven professional needs categories in
the survey. Results are compared between male and female students and all students and faculty. Samples from
Arizona and Minnesota sites were combined. Bolded values indicate Kruskall-Wallis p-value < 0.05.
Table 3: Results of completed professional events survey at dual Mayo Clinic sites, by
student sex and overall rank, 2019
Sex (Medical students only) Professional Rank
Female
(N=30)
Male
(N=31)
Total
(N=61)
P-value
Physician/Scientist
(N=69)
Student
(N=61)
Total
(N=130)
P-value
Career development related
(panel discussions,
practice interviews, CV review)
0.471 .211
Mean (SD) 5.9 (2.47) 5.7 (1.95) 5.8 (2.20) 6.4 (1.84) 5.8
(2.20)
6.1
(2.03)
Median 766 7 6 7
Professional skills training
(writing, leadership, salary
negotiation, communication)
0.041 0.151
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 7
Mean (SD) 6.1 (1.68) 4.9 (2.36) 5.5 (2.13) 5.1 (2.03) 5.5
(2.13)
5.3
(2.08)
Median 756 5 6 6
Informal peer
discussions of
challenges, successes
0.411 <.011
Mean (SD) 3.8 (2.05) 3.2 (1.32) 3.5 (1.73) 4.6 (1.95) 3.5
(1.73)
4.1
(1.93)
Median 333 5 3 4
Group review and
critique of
presentations, specific
aims,
grants, manuscripts
0.261 0.171
Mean (SD) 4.7 (1.94) 4.1 (2.07) 4.4 (2.01) 3.9 (1.95) 4.4
(2.01)
4.1
(1.98)
Median 544 4 4 4
Senior faculty sharing
stories, successes,
challenges, career
0.571 0.631
Mean (SD) 4.6 (2.28) 4.3 (2.40) 4.5 (2.33) 4.7 (2.13) 4.5
(2.33)
4.6
(2.22)
Median 544 4 4 4
Sharing resources,
funding
opportunities, tools
0.321 <.011
Mean (SD) 4.4 (1.92) 4.9 (2.31) 4.6 (2.12) 3.4 (2.20) 4.6
(2.12)
4.0
(2.24)
Median 4.5 5 5 3 5 3.5
Networking, identifying
research collaborators <.011 0.061
Mean (SD) 4.1 (2.30) 5.9 (1.97) 5.0 (2.31) 4.3 (2.26) 5.0
(2.31)
4.6
(2.30)
Median 465 4 5 5
Social events (happy
hours, pizza nights) 0.411 0.111
Mean (SD) 2.4 (1.52) 3.0 (2.16) 2.7 (1.88) 3.6 (2.59) 2.7
(1.88)
3.2
(2.32)
Median 232 3 2 3
1Exact Kruskal-Wallis p-value
Caption: Table 3 reports the mean and median ranking scores for each of the eight professional events categories in
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 8
the survey. Results are compared between male and female students and all students and faculty. Samples from
Arizona and Minnesota sites were combined. Bolded values indicate Kruskall-Wallis p-value < 0.05.
Unmet professional needs (Figure 1)
All students regardless of sex or year ranked future career planning as their highest priority need and financial
planning as their lowest priority need. All students ranked research skills and future career planning higher than that
of faculty. Additionally, all faculty irrespective of sex ranked academic/studying skills higher than what students had
ranked. When faculty were compared by sex, more female faculty identified work-life balance as a perceived
priority for medical students than their male faculty counterparts.
Figure 1: Mean Rankings for Professional Development Needs of Males vs. Females, Physicians vs.
Students
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 9
Figure 1 Caption: Mean ranking results from professional development needs survey from dual Mayo Clinic sites,
2019, comparing Males (N = 31) vs. Females (N = 31) and Physicians (N = 71) vs. Students (N = 62). * = Kruskall-
Wallis p-value < 0.05
Professional development events (Figure 2)
All students, regardless of sex, ranked career development events as most likely to attend and social gathering events
as the least likely to attend. Additionally, all students were more likely to attend resource sharing events than what
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 10
faculty predicted. All faculty, on the other hand, predicted informal peer discussions would be more popular than
what was observed with students. When students were stratified by sex, male students were more likely to attend
networking events than female students whereas female students were more likely to attend professional skills
training events than male students. Faculty did not demonstrate any significant differences in opinions of events by
sex.
Figure 2: Mean Rankings for Professional Development Events of Males vs. Females, Physicians vs.
Students
Figure 2 caption: Mean ranking results from professional development events survey from dual Mayo Clinic sites,
2019, comparing Males (N = 31) vs. Females (N = 31) and Physicians (N = 71) vs. Students (N = 62). * = Kruskall-
Wallis p-value < 0.05
Discussion
An original survey tool was created which was easy to implement and analyze. Pilot data of pre-clerkship medical
students attending the same medical school at two geographic sites reported similar priorities in certain professional
development areas, regardless of year. However, the students’ development priorities were not entirely consistent
with faculty’s perception of the needs and events which they believed to be important for students. This distinction is
important, as faculty are often the organizers and leaders of interest groups and mentorship groups on campus. An
understanding of these student-identified, high-need areas will help programs better tailor their activities to meet
students’ interests. Furthermore, facilitating conversations between students and faculty can also allow discussion
regarding the reasoning behind the prioritization of professional development areas from each perspective.
For example, results from this survey suggest students do not believe academic skills training are as high need as
faculty predicted. Students may feel more equipped to tackle their studying skill responsibilities on their own
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 11
perhaps due to access to plentiful study resources outside of the medical school. Prior research has suggested many
medical students use third-party study resources, such as Anki flashcard decks, SketchyMedical informational
videos, and Firecracker practice questions. These resources complement or even substitute their medical school’s
curriculum (Burk-Rafel, Santen and Purkiss, 2017; Choi-Lundberg et al., 2016; Deng, Gluckstein and Larsen, 2015).
By this point in training, pre-clinical students likely have access to appropriate resources and feel confident in their
studying skills. If this survey repeated at other institutions yields similar results, school administrators may consider
time spent on developing studying strategies may be better used introducing students to basics of medical research
and future career development opportunities.
Many of the surveyed students in this sample preferred to attend structured events which facilitate resource sharing
as opposed to informal, peer-to-peer social events. It may be that students are meeting their social needs elsewhere
outside of school organized events. Programs or social groups may choose to focus their efforts on more formal
sharing of resources, funding sources, and research tools. For example, learning communities, which randomly
divide students into longitudinal mentorship groups across year, are widely prevalent across medical school
campuses. Per a recent Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) survey conducted in 2014, 102 out of
140 responding AAMC schools reported organizing their students into formal "colleges or mentorship groups"
(Shochet et al., 2019). Furthermore, these learning communities provide opportunities for advising and mentoring by
cultivating long-term student-to-student and student-to-faculty relationships, building social networks, and
organizing professional development activities (Shochet et al., 2019). If survey results at other sites suggest resource
sharing is in demand, learning communities may provide an appropriate venue.
We observed sex-based differences in professional development events among students, with males preferring
networking events and females having a stronger preference towards professional skills training. "Imposter
phenomena" may be a possible explanation for why women preferred additional skills training compared to their
male counterparts. Imposter syndrome occurs when female professionals feel inadequate, unskilled, or incompetent
despite having high success, high skills, or accomplishments (Fitzpatrick and Curran, 2014; Shochet et al., 2019;
Villwock et al., 2016). More female physicians and female medical students experience an ‘impostor phenomenon’
when compared to their male colleagues (Fitzpatrick and Curran, 2014; Shochet et al., 2019; Villwock et al., 2016).
The presence of gender bias or microaggressions in the workplace may additionally make females feel inadequate
(Files et al., 2017). As a result, female students in this sample may feel more unprepared in terms of their
professional skills despite having the same level of training as male students. Therefore, female students may focus
on more education and development opportunities as a way to over-compensate for this feeling of inadequacy. We
also hypothesize these results will look similar across medical school campuses.
The imposter syndrome, and a lack of confidence in ones networking skills, may be one possible explanation for why
female students in this sample were less likely to prioritize networking compared to males. Other research on female
physicians and female entrepreneurs suggests women’s more limited engagement in networking may be due to a lack
of aspiration for organization leadership, lack of time, or a focus on seeking advice from within a smaller social
circle (Chae, 2018; Mariam Malende, 2017). Regardless of the specific reasons, promoting same-sex mentorship is
important as female students and trainees traditionally lack academic and professional mentors (Association of
American Medical Colleges, 2017; Butkus et al., 2018; Colón-Emeric, Bowlby, and Svetkey, 2012; Burk-Rafel,
Santen, and Purkiss, 2017; DeFilippis et al., 2016; Faucett et al., 2017; Gaetke-Udager et al., 2018; Lautenberger et
al., 2019; Meschitti, Smith, 2017). Multiple studies have shown that same-sex mentors can target professional
development disparities for women early in their career and can be especially influential when students are
determining their future career choice (Faucett et al., 2017; Gaetke-Udager et al., 2018; Lautenberger et al., 2019;
Lewis et al., 2018). Women in medicine mentorship groups therefore may have a consequential role in addressing
feelings of imposter syndrome, highlighting the importance of mentoring in building professional networks, and
providing opportunities for women-focused networking (Faucett et al., 2017; Gaetke-Udager et al., 2018). This
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 12
survey tool provides an opportunity for such mentorship groups to assess the specific priorities of their students and
then tailor events and activities accordingly.
We also observed sex-based differences among faculty members, with more female than male physicians prioritizing
work-life balance for students. Female physician mothers bear the burden of childrearing and household tasks, even
when in dual-physician relationships (Lyu et al., 2019). This additional work and stress load may contribute to higher
rates of burnout among women (Bickel et al., 2002; Lyu et al., 2019). Female physicians therefore may advocate that
students address work-life balance earlier in their careers. Given the relatively young age and stage of training of the
sample population, the students themselves may not yet see this as high priority. This provides another justification
for promoting conversations between faculty and students to discuss reasoning behind prioritization of professional
development and life skills during medical training. This novel survey tool can provide a means by which to promote
these conversations.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths include the development of a survey tool to evaluate the professional development needs of medical
students. This short and easy to implement electronic survey can be used in a variety of settings, such as mentorship
groups hoping to improve their programming or medical school administrations targeting professional development
gaps within a student class. While certain conclusions were drawn based upon pilot data from this sample, other
institutions are encouraged to repeat this survey in order to make decisions using the most relevant data. Another
strength of the pilot data is students and faculty from geographically diverse sites were surveyed and contributed to
results of the study.
The limitations of our research include the homogeneity of the respondents and small sample size due to a partial
response rate and single institution study. This survey included first and second year medical students only, so the
priorities presented are only for pre-clinical years. We also collected data at a single time point; therefore, this study
cannot provide trends of information or insight into how perception of needs may change over the course of
education. In future study we will evaluate a larger, more diverse student population across more academic years in
order to accurately assess needs and describe how needs may change over the course of training.
Conclusion
Using an original survey in a group of pre-clinical medical students, sex based differences and faculty to student
differences were found for professional development priorities. These results can inform the activities of on-campus
peer mentorship groups, interest groups, and learning communities. As academic medicine seeks to address the sex-
based career disparities of female students and physicians, it is critical to understand and enhance professional
development opportunities for female students in training. This novel survey tool may help programs understand the
professional development priorities of medical students in order to best prepare our next generation of successful
physicians.
Take Home Messages
Male and female medical students may have different professional development needs.1.
There are few evidence-based assessments for the professional development of medical students.2.
This short, electronic survey asks students and faculty to rank seven professional development needs and3.
eight career development events in order of priority.
The novel self-assessment tool can be administered by medical schools, mentorship programs, and student4.
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 13
groups to better quantitatively assess the professional development priorities of their students.
Results from this survey may help programs target sex-based disparities and provide a more tailored5.
experience for all students.
Notes On Contributors
Jennifer MV Talbott is a fourth year medical student at the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale,
Arizona.
Brittany M Foley is a fourth year medical student at the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Juliana M Kling is an associate professor in the Division of Women’s Health Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic,
Scottsdale, Arizona.
Molly B Kraus is an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo
Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Lopa Misra is an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo
Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Heidi E Kosiorek is a biostatistician in the Department of Health Sciences Research, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Elisabeth S Lim is a statistical program analyst in the Department of Health Sciences Research, Scottsdale,
Arizona.
Bhavika K Patel is an assistant professor in the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Acknowledgements
Figures 1 and 2. Source: the authors.
This research was presented by Jennifer Talbott (first author) as a poster presentation titled "Peer Mentorship
Groups and Medical Education: Understanding the Professional Development Priorities of Medical Students" at the
2019 American Medical Student’s Association Annual Convention & Exposition in Washington, D.C. (electronic
program unavailable) on March 8th, 2019 and at the 2019 Centennial Congress of the Medical Women’s International
Association in New York City, N.Y.
(https://www.amwa-doc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-MWIA-Congress-Program-Book.pdf) on July 26,
2019. All authors involved with this manuscript were also involved with the poster presentations.
Bibliography/References
Association of American Medical Colleges. (2017) 'US Medical School Faculty, 2016', Available at:
https://www.aamc.org/data/facultyroster/reports/475478/usmsf16.html (Accessed: 6/19/2019).
Bickel, J., Wara, D., Atkinson, B. F., Cohen, L. S., et al. (2002) 'Increasing women's leadership in academic
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 14
medicine: report of the AAMC Project Implementation Committee', Acad Med, 77(10), pp. 1043-61.
Burk-Rafel, J., Santen, S. A. and Purkiss, J. (2017) 'Study Behaviors and USMLE Step 1 Performance: Implications
of a Student Self-Directed Parallel Curriculum', Acad Med, 92(11S Association of American Medical Colleges
Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions), pp. S67-s74.
https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001916
Butkus, R., Serchen, J., Moyer, D. V., Bornstein, S. S., et al. (2018) 'Achieving Gender Equity in Physician
Compensation and Career Advancement: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians', Ann Intern Med,
168(10), pp. 721-723. https://doi.org/10.7326/m17-3438
Carr, P. L., Gunn, C., Raj, A., Kaplan, S., et al. (2017) 'Recruitment, Promotion, and Retention of Women in
Academic Medicine: How Institutions Are Addressing Gender Disparities', Womens Health Issues, 27(3), pp.
374-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2016.11.003
Choi-Lundberg, D. L., Low, T. F., Patman, P., Turner, P., et al. (2016) 'Medical student preferences for self-
directed study resources in gross anatomy', Anat Sci Educ, 9(2), pp. 150-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1549
Colón-Emeric, C. S., Bowlby, L. and Svetkey, L. (2012) 'Establishing faculty needs and priorities for peer-
mentoring groups using a nominal group technique', Medical Teacher, 34(8), pp. 631-634.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.669084
DeFilippis, E., Cowell, E., Rufin, M., Sansone, S., et al. (2016) 'Innovative mentoring for female medical students',
Clin Teach, 13(5), pp. 381-2. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12408
Deng, F., Gluckstein, J. A. and Larsen, D. P. (2015) 'Student-directed retrieval practice is a predictor of medical
licensing examination performance', Perspect Med Educ, 4(6), pp. 308-313.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0220-x
Faucett, E. A., McCrary, H. C., Milinic, T., Hassanzadeh, T., et al. (2017) 'The role of same-sex mentorship and
organizational support in encouraging women to pursue surgery', Am J Surg, 214(4), pp. 640-644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.07.005
Files, J. A., Mayer, A. P., Ko, M. G., Friedrich, P., et al. (2017) 'Speaker Introductions at Internal Medicine Grand
Rounds: Forms of Address Reveal Gender Bias', J Womens Health (Larchmt), 26(5), pp. 413-419.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6044
Fitzpatrick, T. A. and Curran, C. R. (2014) 'Waiting for your coronation: a career-limiting trap', Nurs Econ, 32(3),
pp. 162-5.
Gaetke-Udager, K., Knoepp, U. S., Maturen, K. E., Leschied, J. R., et al. (2018) 'A Women in Radiology Group
Fosters Career Development for Faculty and Trainees', American Journal of Roentgenology, 211(1), pp. W47-W51.
https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18994
Han, H., Kim, Y., Kim, S., Cho, Y., et al. (2018) 'Looking into the labyrinth of gender inequality: women physicians
in academic medicine', Medical Education, 52(10), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/medu.13682
Lautenberger D, Dandar V, Raezer C, and Sloane, R. (2019) 'The State of Women in Academic Medicine: The
Pipeline and Pathways to Leadership, 2015-2016', Available at: https://www.aamc.org/members/gwims/statistics/
(Accessed: 6/19/2019).
Talbott J, Foley B, Kling J, Kraus M, Misra L, Kosiorek H, Lim E, Patel B
MedEdPublish
https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2020.000236.1
Page | 15
Lewis, J. D., Fane, K. E., Ingraham, A. M., Khan, A., et al. (2018) 'Expanding Opportunities for Professional
Development: Utilization of Twitter by Early Career Women in Academic Medicine and Science', JMIR Med Educ,
4(2):e11140.
Lyu, H. G., Davids, J. S., Scully, R. E. and Melnitchouk, N. (2019) 'Association of Domestic Responsibilities With
Career Satisfaction for Physician Mothers in Procedural vs Nonprocedural Fields', JAMA Surgery.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0529
Mariam Malende, K. V. (2017) The Role of Networks in Female Entrepreneurship: What Hinders Females’ Weak-ties
Networking Activities, Jonkoping University International Business School.
Meschitti, V. and Smith, H. (2017) 'Does Mentoring Make a Difference for Women Academics? Evidence from the
Literature and a Guide for Future Research', Journal of Research in Gender Studies., 7(1), pp.
166-199. https://doi.org/10.22381/JRGS7120176
Shochet, R., Fleming, A., Wagner, J., Colbert-Getz, J., et al. (2019) 'Defining Learning Communities in
Undergraduate Medical Education: A National Study', J Med Educ Curric Dev,
6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120519827911
Travis, E. L. (2018) 'Academic Medicine Needs More Women Leaders', Available at:
https://news.aamc.org/diversity/article/academic-medicine-needs-more-women-leaders/ (Accessed: 6/17/2019).
Villwock, J. A., Sobin, L. B., Koester, L. A. and Harris, T. M. (2016) 'Impostor syndrome and burnout among
American medical students: a pilot study', Int J Med Educ, 7, pp. 364-369. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5801.eac4
Appendices
None.
Declarations
The author has declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
This has been published under Creative Commons "CC BY 4.0" (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)
Ethics Statement
Mayo Clinic IRB Application #18-006892. Approval Date 8/15/2018. The above referenced application was
reviewed by expedited review procedures and was determined to be exempt from the requirement for IRB approval
(45 CFR 46.101b, item 2). Continued IRB review of this study is not required as it is currently written.
External Funding
This article has not had any External Funding
MedEdPublish: rapid, post-publication, peer-reviewed articles on healthcare professions’ education. For more
