Cited by 30Innovations in Medical EducationDiversity and Career in MedicineMentoring and Academic Development

Differences in Coaching Needs Among Underrepresented Minority Medical Students

Open access
Najibi, Skender, Carney, Patricia A., Thayer, Erin K., Deiorio, Nicole M.·2019·Family Medicine

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Little is known about how the academic coaching needs of medical students differ between those who are racially, ethnically, and socially underrepresented minority (RES-URM) and those who represent the majority. This single-site exploratory study investigated student perceptions and coaching needs associated with a mandatory academic coaching program, and coaches’ understanding of and preparedness to address these potentially differing needs. Methods: Coaching needs of second- and third-year medical students were assessed using two initial focus groups and two validation focus groups, one consisting of RES-URM students and the other majority medical students. Coaches were assessed using a cross-sectional self-administered survey designed to determine their perceptions of differing coaching needs of students Results: Seven themes emerged from the student focus groups. Three of these reflected the coaching relationship, and four reflected the coaching process. RES-URM students expressed stress around sharing vulnerability that was not expressed among majority students. Sixty-eight percent of coaches expressed that RES-URM students would not have differing needs of their coaches. Coaches self-rated as being somewhat (45%), moderately (29%), or very (13%) skilled at coaching RES-URM students. Conclusions: RES-URM students cite different coaching needs than majority students that most coaches do not recognize. Faculty and program development regarding these unique needs is warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22454/fammed.2019.100305

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Coaching URM students is a student outcome.

    “| Coaching outcomes | Student | Coaching the URMj students | [105,115] |”

    From Coaching in undergraduate and graduate medical education: a scoping review of success factors, barriers, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Medical Student Results describe URM students’ experiences and needs in coaching, so the source supports the table’s focus on coaching these students. The Discussion refers to optimal coaching outcomes as a goal for further investigation; it does not establish ‘coaching URM students’ as a measured student outcome. The supplied passages do not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. American Medical Association. AMA Contin- ues Innovative Initiative to Reshape Medical https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press- releases/ama-continues-innovative-initiative- reshape-medical-education. Published April 13, 2013. Accessed September 9, 2017.
  2. Gifford KA, Fall LH. Doctor coach: a deliberate practice approach to teaching and learning clinical skills. Acad Med. 2014;89(2):272-276.
  3. Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facili- tated reflective performance feedback: devel- oping an evidence-and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1698-1706.
  4. Schumacher DJ, Englander R, Carraccio C. Developing the master learner: applying learning theory to the learner, the teacher, and the learning environment. Acad Med. 2013;88(11):1635-1645.
  5. Miller WL, Crabtree BF. The Dance of In- terpretation. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1999:127-143.
  6. Orom H, Semalulu T, Underwood W III. The so- cial and learning environments experienced by underrepresented minority medical students: a narrative review. Acad Med. 2013;88(11):1765- 1777.
  7. Bell S. Self-reflection and vulnerability in ac- tion research: bringing forth new worlds in our learning. Syst Pract Action Res. 1998;11(2):179- 191.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Najibi, S., Carney, P. A., Thayer, E. K., & Deiorio, N. M.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Najibi, Skender
Venue
Family Medicine
Published
2019-06-06
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
516-522
ISSN
0742-3225 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2958494059
Cited by
30
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
Keywords
academic coaching, racial and ethnic minority students, coach-client relationship, vulnerability disclosure, medical student stress, student perceptions
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Cross-Sectional Studies, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Minority Groups, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Focus Groups, Cultural Diversity, Racial Groups

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