Hortos K, Corser W, Church B, Rohrer J, Waarala K. Perceived Importance of Pursuing Osteopathic Recognition in the Single Accreditation System: A Survey of Medical Students, Residents, and Faculty. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2017;117(10):651–659. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2017.122.
Download citation file:
As graduate medical education evolves under the single accreditation system, osteopathic residency programs and consortia strive for sustainable ways to achieve and support the Osteopathic Recognition (OR) designation.
To determine whether differences existed in perceived importance of OR from 3 cohorts of osteopathic stakeholders: students, residents, and faculty.
A nonexperimental quantitative cross-sectional online survey was administered during February and March 2016 to osteopathic medical students at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and residents and faculty from the affiliated Statewide Campus System. After examining final working dataset patterns, a series of Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to identify statistically significant differences in perceived OR importance response categories across sample subgroups, including program specialty and primary vs non–primary care specialty.
The final analytic sample comprised 278 osteopathic medical students, 359 residents, and 94 faculty members. Of 728 respondents, 497 (67.9%) indicated that OR was “somewhat important,” “important,” or “very important.” The overall perceived importance category patterns varied significantly across students, residents, and faculty cohort respondents (, P<.001) and program specialty (, P<.001), as well as between primary care and non–primary care residents and faculty (, P<.001).
Based on these initial results, OR is generally valued across osteopathic stakeholder groups, but significant differences may exist between different types of students, residents, and faculty. Pre- and postgraduate educational support structures designed to reduce barriers to OR implementation may help to sustain osteopathic principles and practice in the single accreditation system.
a Although 733 people responded to the survey, the total analytic sample with largely complete data was 728.
b Included program directors, directors of medical education, and faculty/adjunct faculty.
c If reported by resident or faculty member.
Abbreviations: ACGME, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; GME, graduate medical education.
a Included program directors, directors of medical education, and faculty/adjunct faculty.
Abbreviations: ACGME, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; GME, graduate medical education; OR, osteopathic recognition.
a Response options were 0 (“not important”), 1 (“not very important”), 2 (“somewhat important”), 3 (“important”), and 4 (“very important”).
c If specialty was reported and the respondent was a resident or faculty member.
d If specialty was reported, the respondent was a resident or faculty member, and the data were fitted into analytic software.
a Faculty included program directors, directors of medical education, and faculty/adjunct faculty. Nine barriers were listed, each with a potential score of 0 (“no challenge”) to 4 (“greatest challenge”), for a total possible range of 0 to 36.
Abbreviations: ACGME, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education; OPP, osteopathic principles and practice; OR, osteopathic recognition.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase Options