4.2 Article

Outcomes of a Survey-Based Approach to Determine Factors Contributing to the Shortage of Occupational Medicine Physicians in the United States

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001315

关键词

burnout; mid-career physician; occupational medicine; preventive medicine; Train-in-Place Program

资金

  1. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health & Human Resources (HHS) [D33HP25770-01-00]
  2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-grant [5-TO1-0H008628]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the majority of medical students had limited understanding of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, and most OEM physicians indicated they may have chosen a different career path if they had learned about OEM earlier. Additionally, most TIP program trainees reported that they wouldn't have undertaken specialty training without the TIP program.
Context: There is a long-standing shortage of formally trained Occupational & Environmental Medicine (OEM) physicians despite OEM practitioners experiencing high satisfaction and low burnout. Objective: To explore the root causes of this shortage and suggest potential remedies. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were administered to medical students queried regarding OEM training, practicing OEM physicians queried regarding timing of specialty choice, and OEM Train-in-Place (TIP) program graduates queried regarding satisfaction with training. Results: Of 247 medical student respondents, 70% had heard of OEM, 60% through one lecture. Of the 160 OEM physicians, 17% first became aware of OEM as medical students, and most would have chosen a different path had they heard sooner. Most TIP program trainees reported that they would not have undertaken specialty training without a TIP program (89%). Conclusions: Strategies to introduce OEM earlier in medical education and TIP programs for mid-career physicians may help overcome persistent shortages of OEM specialists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据