Screening for Food Insecurity: A Curriculum for Medical Students.
| Autor: | Jarris YS; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC., Chang H; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC., Kureshi S; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC., Mishori R; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC | Physicians for Human Rights, Washington, DC., Kaljee L; Henry Ford Health, Global Health Initiative, Detroit, MI., Hunting J; Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC., Laurent MS; Department of General Pediatrics, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY., Chen HC; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) [PRiMER] 2024 Feb 19; Vol. 8, pp. 9. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 19 (Print Publication: 2024). |
| DOI: | 10.22454/PRiMER.2024.858771 |
| Abstrakt: | Introduction: Food insecurity (FI) is defined as a lack of access to enough food for an active, healthy life. We sought to determine how a longitudinal FI screening curriculum impacts medical students' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in screening for FI. Methods: This was a prospective, single-institution study. The curriculum consisted of three components completed over 3 years. We administered a survey to the intervention cohort before and after the curriculum and analyzed their written reflections. We also evaluated whether students screened for FI during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) and compared their performance to a control cohort, which did not receive the curriculum. Results: Preintervention, students felt screening for FI was important for physicians to do with their patients, but most felt uncomfortable addressing it in clinical settings. Postintervention, there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores for knowledge questions (45.24% vs 74.74%, P <.001, pre- and postintervention, respectively). Students also felt more confident in their abilities to screen and follow up about FI. Additionally, compared to the control cohort, the intervention cohort screened for FI more often during their OSCE (28.21% vs 10.71%, P <.001). Conclusion: A longitudinal curriculum using minimal curricular time can improve students' knowledge, attitudes, and behavior when screening for FI. Students who received the curriculum were more likely to recognize the need for and perform FI screening. Based on these findings, we anticipate that the curriculum will increase the likelihood of students identifying, screening for, and intervening in cases of FI in future clinical encounters. (© 2024 by the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine.) |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|