The economic costs of selecting medical students: An Australian case study.
Journal
Medical education
ISSN: 1365-2923
Titre abrégé: Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7605655
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
received:
23
12
2019
accepted:
26
02
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
3
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The design of selection methods must balance, amongst a range of factors, the desire to select the best possible future doctors with the reality of our resource-constrained environment. Examining the cost of selection processes enables us to identify areas in which efficiencies may be gained. A cost description study was conducted based on selection for 2018 entry into medical school directly from secondary school. The perspectives of applicants, volunteer interviewers and the admitting institution were considered. Costs were modelled based on the Monash University (Australia) selection process, which uses a combination of secondary school matriculation score, aptitude test score (Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test) and multiple mini-interview score. A variety of data sources were utilised, including bespoke surveys, audit data and existing literature. All costs are expressed in 2018 Australian dollars (AU$). Applicant behaviours in preparing for selection tests were also evaluated. A total of 381 of 383 applicants returned the survey. Over 70% of applicants had utilised commercial preparation materials. The median total cost to applicants was AU$2586 (interquartile range [IQR] AU$1574-3999), including costs to both prepare for and attend selection tests. Of 217 volunteer interviewers, 108 returned the survey. These were primarily health professional clinicians at a mid-career stage. The median total cost to interviewers was AU$452 (IQR AU$252-715) for participation in a half-day interview session, largely due to the loss of income. The cost to the admitting institution was AU$269 per applicant, accounted for by the costs of equipment and consumables (52%), personnel (34%) and facilities (14%). The costs of student selection for medical school are substantial. Understanding costs facilitates achievement of the objective of selecting the desired future medical workforce within the constraints of the resources available. Opportunities for change may arise from changes in applicant preparation behaviours, opportunities for economies of scale, and efficiencies driven by technological solutions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
643-651Informations de copyright
© 2020 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Patterson F, Roberts C, Hanson MD, et al. Ottawa consensus statement: selection and recruitment to the healthcare professions. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1091-1101.
Patterson F, Knight A, Dowell J, Nicholson S, Cousans F, Cleland J. How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):36-60.
Jones RF. The effect of commercial coaching courses on performance on the MCAT. J Med Educ. 1986;61(4):273-284.
Lambe P, Waters C, Bristow D. The UK Clinical Aptitude Test: is it a fair test for selecting medical students? Med Teach. 2012;34(8):e557-e565.
Stemig MS, Sackett PR, Lievens F. Effects of organizationally endorsed coaching on performance and validity of situational judgment tests. Int J Select Assess. 2015;23(2):174-181.
Griffin B, Carless S, Wilson I. The effect of commercial coaching on selection test performance. Med Teach. 2013;35(4):295-300.
Griffin B. Coaching issues. In: Patterson F, Zibarras L, eds. Selection and Recruitment in the Healthcare Professions: Research, Theory and Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018:223-248.
Dhar D, Perry W, Poole P. Students' perceptions of the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admissions Test (UMAT). N Z Med J. 2012;125(1361):29-36.
Tiller D, O'Mara D, Rothnie I, Dunn S, Lee L, Roberts C. Internet-based multiple mini-interviews for candidate selection for graduate entry programmes. Med Educ. 2013;47(8):801-810.
Foo J, Ilic D, Rivers G, et al. Using cost-analyses to inform health professions education - the economic cost of pre-clinical failure. Med Teach. 2017;40(12):1221-1230.
Rutherford D. Routledge Dictionary of Economics, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013.
Walsh K. Economic analysis in medical education: definition of essential terms. Med Teach. 2014;36(10):890-893.
Haines TP, Kent F, Keating JL. Interprofessional student clinics: an economic evaluation of collaborative clinical placement education. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(4):292-298.
Maloney S, Haas R, Keating JL, et al. Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for health professionals. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(2):e47.
Foo J, Rivers G, Ilic D, et al. The economic cost of failure in clinical education: a multi-perspective analysis. Med Educ. 2017;51(7):740-754.
Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Funding Clusters and Indexed Rates. DESE; 2018. https://www.education.gov.au/funding-clusters-and-indexed-rates. Accessed February 2, 2020.
Laurence CO, Zajac IT, Lorimer M, Turnbull DA, Sumner KE. The impact of preparatory activities on medical school selection outcomes: a cross-sectional survey of applicants to the University of Adelaide Medical School in 2007. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):159.
McGaghie WC, Downing SM, Kubilius R. What is the impact of commercial test preparation courses on medical examination performance? Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(2):202-211.
Griffin B, Harding DW, Wilson IG, Yeomans ND. Does practice make perfect? The effect of coaching and retesting on selection tests used for admission to an Australian medical school. Med J Aust. 2008;189(5):270-273.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2015-16 (cat. no. 65300DO003_201516). Canberra, ACT: ABS; 2017.
Griffin B, Hu W. The interaction of socio-economic status and gender in widening participation in medicine. Med Educ. 2015;49(1):103-113.
Thomson S. Achievement at school and socioeconomic background - an educational perspective. NPJ Sci Learn. 2018;3(1):5.
Sianou-Kyrgiou E, Tsiplakides I. Similar performance, but different choices: social class and higher education choice in Greece. Stud High Educ. 2011;36(1):89-102.
Rivers G, Foo J, Ilic D, et al. The economic value of an investment in physiotherapy education: a net present value analysis. J Physiother. 2015;61(3):148-154.
Australian Medical Association. AMA Victoria - Victorian Public Health Sector - Doctors in Training Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021. AMA; 2018. https://www.fwc.gov.au/document/agreement/AE429349. Accessed February 2, 2020.
Owler BK. Medical degrees being priced out of reach. Aust Med Stud J. 2015;6(1).
Foo J, Maloney S. Embracing a dialogue about cost in physiotherapy education. OpenPhysio. 2018:1-4.
Maloney S, Moss A, Keating J, Kotsanas G, Morgan P. Sharing teaching and learning resources: perceptions of a university's faculty members. Med Educ. 2013;47(8):811-819.
Prideaux D, Teubner J, Sefton A, Field M, Gordon J, Price D. The Consortium of Graduate Medical Schools in Australia: formal and informal collaboration in medical education. Med Educ. 2000;34(6):449-454.
Patterson F, Zibarras L, Ashworth V. Situational judgement tests in medical education and training: research, theory and practice: AMEE Guide No. 100. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):3-17.
Dore KL, Reiter HI, Kreuger S, Norman GR. CASPer, an online pre-interview screen for personal/professional characteristics: prediction of national licensure scores. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(2):327-336.
Ballejos MP, Oglesbee S, Hettema J, Sapien R. An equivalence study of interview platform: does videoconference technology impact medical school acceptance rates of different groups? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018;23(3):601-610.
Amiel GE, Tann M, Krausz MM, Bitterman A, Cohen R. Increasing examiner involvement in an objective structured clinical examination by integrating a structured oral examination. Am J Surg. 1997;173(6):546-549.
Schreurs S, Cleland J, Muijtjens AMM, oude Egbrink MGA, Cleutjens K. Does selection pay off? A cost-benefit comparison of medical school selection and lottery systems. Med Educ. 2018;52(12):1240-1248.
Schreurs S, Cleutjens K, oude Egbrink MGA. Increasing value in research: cost evaluations in health professions education. Med Educ. 2019;53(12):1171-1173.
Kelly ME, Patterson F, O'Flynn S, Mulligan J, Murphy AW. A systematic review of stakeholder views of selection methods for medical schools admission. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):139.
Maloney S, Cook DA, Golub R, et al. AMEE Guide No. 123 - How to read studies of educational costs. Med Teach. 2019;41(5):497-504.
Wijnen-Meijer M, Burdick W, Alofs L, Burgers C, ten Cate O. Stages and transitions in medical education around the world: clarifying structures and terminology. Med Teach. 2013;35(4):301-307.
Mas A, Pallais A. Labor Supply and the Value of Non-Work Time: Experimental Estimates from the Field. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2017.