PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9653404

Ideals in action: the U.S. Schweitzer Fellows Programs.

Abstract

The inclusion of formal courses in medical ethics as part of standard undergraduate medical education has not led to widespread confidence in the moral and professional development of young physicians. As important as classes on informed consent and other such topics are, alternative approaches to professional moral development are needed. One example can be found in The U.S. Schweitzer Fellows Programs, which now support over 100 health professions students annually in six locations. Fellows participate in activities designed to strengthen the ideals that originally attracted them to medicine and other health care fields. Because Dr. Schweitzer is remembered primarily for the way he translated his ideals of human service into action, the core activity of each program is a direct-service project that addresses an important unmet health need of the local community or individuals in the community, with the support of community-based and school-based mentors. Alumni of these programs report that their experiences as Schweitzer fellows have helped them integrate their own ideals into their professional and career development. Such systematic efforts to recognize and support the latent idealism of young health professionals may strengthen the moral dimensions of professional life in ways that have broad social benefits.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Forrow, M L Wolf. 1998. Ideals in action: the U.S. Schweitzer Fellows Programs.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199806000-00012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗