SEALS: an Innovative Pipeline Program Targeting Obstacles to Diversity in the Physician Workforce
Abstract
Objective Medical schools may find implementing pipeline programs for minority pre-medical students prohibitive due to a number of factors including the lack of well-described programs in the literature, the limited evidence for program development, and institutional financial barriers. Our goals were to (1) design a pipeline program based on educational theory; (2) deliver the program in a low cost, sustainable manner; and (3) evaluate intermediate outcomes of the program. Methods SEALS is a 6-week program based on an asset bundles model designed to promote: (1) socialization and professionalism, (2) education in science learning tools, (3) acquisition of finance literacy, (4) the leveraging of mentorship and networks, and (5) social expectations and resilience, among minority pre-medical students. This is a prospective mixed methods study. Students completed survey instruments pre-program, post-program, and 6 months post-program, establishing intermediate outcome measures. Results Thirteen students matriculated to SEALS. The SEALS cohort rated themselves as improved or significantly improved when asked to rate their familiarity with MCAT components (p Conclusions This low-cost, high-quality, program can be undertaken by medical schools interested in promoting a diverse workforce that may ultimately begin to address and reduce health care disparities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most programs that offer these opportunities are longitudinally constrained by administrative costs and support for students.
“Most programs that offer these opportunities are longitudinally constrained by administrative costs and support for students.15,16”
From Impact of the Bronx Community Health Leaders Program for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Prehealth Students (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Robles, J., Qadeer, R., Reyes Adames, T., & Naqvi, Z. (2021) · Health Equity · doi:10.1089/heq.2021.0065 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fritz, C. D. L., Press, V. G., Nabers, D., Levinson, D., Humphrey, H., & Vela, M. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
- Published
- 2015-05-28
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-232
- ISSN
- 2196-8837 (ISSN-L)
- 2197-3792
- OpenAlex
- W1119968866
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Chicago
- Pritzker School of Medicine
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Keywords
- physician workforce diversity, professionalism, mentoring, financial literacy, letters of recommendation, interview skills, medical school admissions
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Mentors, Minority Groups, Prospective Studies, Schools, Medical, Program Development, Cultural Diversity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review