Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners

  1. Allison Brown
  2. Aliya Kassam
  3. Mike Paget
  4. Kenneth Blades
  5. Megan Mercia
  6. Rahim Kahcra

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: The evidence surrounding the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners remains anecdotal and highly speculative despite the anticipated impact and potential consequences of the current pandemic on medical training. The purpose of this study was to explore the extent that COVID-19 initially impacted medical learners around the world and examine global trends and patterns across geographic regions and levels of training. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of medical learners was conducted between March 25–June 14, 2020, shortly after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Results: 6492 learners completed the survey from 140 countries. Most medical schools removed learners from the clinical environment and adopted online learning, but students reported concerns about the quality of their learning, training progression, and milestone fulfillment. Residents reported they could be better utilized and expressed concerns about their career timeline. Trainees generally felt under-utilized and wanted to be engaged clinically in meaningful ways; however, some felt that contributing to healthcare during a pandemic was beyond the scope of a learner. Significant differences were detected between levels of training and geographic regions for satisfaction with organizational responses as well as the impact of COVID-19 learner wellness and state-trait anxiety. Conclusions: The disruption to the status quo of medical education is perceived by learners across all levels and geographic regions to have negatively affected their training and well-being, particularly amongst postgraduate trainees. These results provide initial empirical insights into the areas that warrant future research as well as consideration for current and future policy planning.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.36834/cmej.71149
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.01.20186304: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board reviewed and approved this study (File #20-0484).
    Consent: Implied consent was obtained from all participants.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data Analysis: Quantitative data were imported into SPSS Version 26 (IBM Corp.,
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: We acknowledge that this study has several limitations, including the response and selection bias. The response rates from residents are low, potentially because they continued working clinically and the disruptions to their training were less extreme than for medical students who were completely removed from their training environments. Further, this study excluded participants who did not speak any of the 20 languages of the survey and there may be inconsistencies across the survey translations despite our best attempts to ensure questions and constructs translated accurately. Due to the public circulation of the survey, participants could not be validated as medical learners. A small fraction (3.5%) of participants did not specify their level of training and were excluded from the comparisons across levels of training. The geographic comparisons remain limited, as other classification systems (e.g., the World Health Organization regions) may have generated different results and there may be more pronounced differences between countries within similar regions (e.g., the United States vs. Canada). Finally, the variable responses to COVID-19 across countries and time is worth noting. Numerous qualitative comments highlighted how national responses informed the responses of professional organizations and training programs. Future research could examine potential associations between temporality and the political and health system responses to examine how these fac...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.01.20186304v1 on medRxiv