Class of 2016 "Osteopathic Recognition" GME Survey Results - 2015

[SnowDoggy44]

The results of the survey many of us may have taken part in back in March have been released:
http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/single-gme-accreditation/or-survey-may-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=8

My thoughts:

• This study had the opportunity to provide valuable information for program and institutional leaders as they consider the future curriculum, marketing, and accreditation of the GME program(s) they are involved with. Unfortunately, I don't think it was well advertised, and provides very limited useful information.
  
• It is hard to draw very solid conclusions about the class of 2016 perceptions when only 17% responded, but the authors seemed to have no issue with calling this a "representative sample". I fear that this study suffered greatly from response bias. I wish more COM deans would have encouraged students to participate like was done at my school.
  
• Why only include a "selected comments" section from students who only seem to have chosen the "very important" and "important" options for level of importance of osteopathic recognition in GME program rank order? Surely there would have been some comments from the NOs and "Not important at all" that could attempt to represent themes of attitudes.
  
• It will be interesting to see if the formally analyzed results of this survey from COSGP ( http://cosgp.org/osteopathic-medical-education-the-student-perspective/ ) will support the AACOM's conclusions about student perceptions of Osteopathic Recognition.
• Personally, I'm glad that there are many students out there who feel Osteopathic recognition and continued training in Osteopathic principles are important. I hope the transition to single accreditation proceeds swiftly and smoothly with the least attrition of Osteopathic presence and programs possible.

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[meliora27]

I highly doubt the AOA is going to publish anything that goes against their mission...

 

[Fergison2]

Two things that come to mind here:

One - as far as the previous track record of the AOA they know not to take their chances with truly random representations so I highly suspect there was likely selection bias such as the 17 percent being those who were attending a convocation. They always pull the same games.

Two - never trust the AOA.

 

[meliora27]

Similar to the online town halls meetings when the unified GME was being discussed, the comments again are very cherry picked.

 

[hallowmann]

I highly doubt the AOA is going to publish anything that goes against their mission...

I don't know about the AOA as a whole, but AACOM has actually published things that were contrary to the way they were doing things/aspects of their mission before. It also was part of a survey and resulted in a change of policy to address some of the complaints.

 

[SnowDoggy44]

I don't know about the AOA as a whole, but AACOM has actually published things that were contrary to the way they were doing things/aspects of their mission before. It also was part of a survey and resulted in a change of policy to address some of the complaints.

Do you have example(s) with sources?

 

[Mr Kenobi]

I am really looking forward to seeing results from that COSGP OMM survey.