Ashby, Grayson B.

Abstract Purpose Medical school applicants engage in informal preference signaling by submitting letters of intent (which include a commitment to accept an admission offer) and letters of interest (which include no such commitment). Commitments are unenforceable and are based on an honor system. Applicants submit letters to medical schools before receiving financial aid offers, potentially disadvantaging low socioeconomic status (SES) applicants. This study describes postinterview communication patterns and analyzes associations among applicant demographics, letter submission rates, and admissions outcomes. It tests the hypothesis that low SES is negatively associated with letter of intent submission. Method The authors collected postinterview communications from all interviewees at the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine during 3 admissions cycles (2021-2023). Authors developed and validated codebook definitions for the 2 letter types. SES was defined using the Association of American Medical Colleges education-occupation indicator. Letter submission rates were compared using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results Of 1,313 applicants, 1,109 submitted 1 letter or more. The sample included 257 (19.6%) low-SES and 1,056 (80.4%) non–low-SES applicants. Coders showed excellent interrater reliability (Gwet AC1 range, 0.89-0.995). Low-SES applicants submitted letters of intent with similar frequency to higher-SES applicants (33.9% [87/257] vs 33.5% [354/1,056]; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.76-1.37; P = .88) and submitted letters of interest at similar frequency (55.6% [143/257] vs 59.5% [628/1,056]; odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.13; P = .27). Among 116 applicants who wrote letters of intent and were offered admission, 20 (17.2%) declined the admission offer. Conclusions There was no difference in letter of intent submission based on SES, and letter of intent submission was positively associated with matriculation. Among letter of intent writers who were offered admission, 1 in 6 declined. Undergraduate medical education may wish to consider a formalized preference signaling system to promote an honest and transparent application process.

AbstractBackgroundIt has yet to be fully elucidated how differing populations of obstetric patients adapted to the disruptions in perinatal care and postpartum support from the COVID‐19 pandemic. We surveyed an enriched sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients to understand the influence of COVID‐19 on their perinatal care experience, well‐being, and coping.MethodsWe surveyed pregnant and postpartum patients (n = 6140) at a large academic medical center in the Midwest of the United States using the Coronavirus and Perinatal Experiences instrument in Spring 2021.ResultsThe survey was sent to 6141 pregnant and postpartum patients; 1180 (17.8%) respondents completed the survey, including 256 who were pregnant and 834 postpartum. Most pregnant patients experienced no changes in their prenatal care with 16.5% indicating somewhat worsened care. In the postpartum cohort, 37.5% stated their care had somewhat worsened. In describing influences on stress and mental health, 58.1% of postpartum respondents stated it was moderately, and 17.4% significantly, worse. The pandemic had a somewhat or moderately negative influence for 72.7% of respondents, with 11.0% stating these effects were extremely negative. Both cohorts characterized a range of coping strategies, most commonly, talking with friends and family (76.3%).Conclusion(s)Even among this sample of socioeconomically advantaged patients, respondents indicated that the pandemic disrupted many facets of their medical care and daily life, especially social activities and postpartum support. Our findings suggest that counseling on coping and adaptation strategies for stressors and increased health systems support be part of perinatal care during public health emergencies for all demographic groups.

This cross-sectional study analyzed a database of Congressional candidate campaign websites to assess the frequency and specificity of pediatric health policy discussions in political campaigns.