Factors influencing US osteopathic medical students to choose pathology as a specialty

Abstract

The decline in the number of US allopathic (Medical Doctor or M.D.) medical students matching to pathology residency has been a topic of much discussion at national pathology professional society meetings and in recent publications. A recent survey of fourth-year allopathic medicals students was conducted to better understand the rationale behind students' interest or lack thereof in pathology as a specialty. This study utilizes a similar survey tool gauging osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathy or D.O.) student knowledge and interest in pathology, and offers insight into a possible growth market for the specialty. Similar to allopathic students, osteopathic students noted that clinical or research opportunities in pathology during medical school, autopsy observation/participation, and participation in pathology interest groups correlated with a greater likelihood of selecting pathology as a specialty. However, some key differences in osteopathic medical school curricular elements including microscope use, gross pathology specimen demonstrations, case-based learning by pathologists, exposure to pathology during other rotations, awareness of a pathology interest group, as well as an overall understanding of the everyday work of a pathologist were noted. Experiential exposure to pathology, and direct mentorship from pathologists may present an opportunity for pathology professional organizations, and pathology residency programs to partner with osteopathic medical schools to increase interest in the field, and aid in pipeline development.

Keywords: Career choices; Osteopathic medical student; Pathology; Pathology residency; Specialty choice.

Fig. 1

Osteopathic medical student participation.

Fig. 2

Match preferences and outcome.

Fig. 3

Factors impacting specialty choice.

Fig. 4

Medical school type and factors influencing specialty choice. All results shown achieved statistical significance. Significance was tested via independent samples t-tests. Bar graphs reflect selections correlated to a Likert scale of 1–5 corresponding to (1) not at all, (2) only slightly, (3) somewhat, (4) for the most part, and (5) very much so.

Fig. 5

Medical school type and participation in medical school pathology curriculum elements. All curriculum elements represented achieved statistical significance via two-way chi-square test. Analysis for two additional curriculum elements (lectures delivered by a pathologist and required rotation) achieved statistical significance; however, the difference in participation rates for these activities is not practically meaningful and therefore was excluded from this figure.

Fig. 6

Pathology interest group awareness among students attending schools that have an Interest Group.

Fig. 7

Resources used to research pathology. The percentages represent the percentage of the 49 of 209 respondents who considered a career in pathology who used various resources to research pathology as a career.

Fig. 8

Perceptions of pathology exposure. The numbers in the graph represent the mean rating across all respondents. Each criterion was ranked on a Likert scale of (1) not at all, (2) only slightly, (3) somewhat, (4) for the most part, and (5) very much so. The numbers labeling each bar indicate the mean rating across all respondents. Percentage on the X-axis designates the percent responding very much so (5) or for the most part (4). Numbers in the graph represent mean rating across all respondents.

Fig. 9

Perceptions of pathology exposure in osteopathic medical students who considered versus those who did not consider pathology as a specialty. The numbers in the graph represent the mean rating across all respondents who considered pathology versus those who did not. All categories represented achieved statistical significance. Significance was tested via independent samples t-tests.

Fig. 10

Perceptions of pathology as a medical specialty. The numbers in the graph represent the mean rating across all respondents. Each criterion was ranked on a Likert scale of (1) not at all, (2) only slightly, (3) somewhat, (4) for the most part, and (5) very much so. The numbers labeling each bar indicate the mean rating across all respondents. Percentage on the X-axis designates the percent responding very much so (5) or for the most part (4). Numbers in the graph represent mean rating across all respondents.

Fig. 11

Consideration of pathology and perceptions of pathology exposure. The numbers in the graph represent the mean rating across all respondents who considered pathology versus those who did not.

Fig. 12

Consideration of pathology and perceptions of pathology as a medical specialty. The numbers in the graph represent the mean rating across all respondents who considered pathology versus those who did not.