American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation
-
Am J Phys Med Rehabil · Jun 2019
The "Minimum Clinically Important Difference" in Frequently Reported Objective Physical Function Tests After a 12-Week Renal Rehabilitation Exercise Intervention in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease.
Chronic kidney disease patients are characterized by impaired physical function. The goal of exercise-based interventions is an improvement in functional performance. However, improvements are often determined by "statistically significant" changes. We investigated the "minimum clinically important difference," "the smallest change that is important to the patient," for commonly reported physical function tests. ⋯ Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
-
Am J Phys Med Rehabil · Jun 2019
Observational StudyIs There Evidence of Gender Bias in the Oral Examination for Initial Certification by the American Board of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation?
Unconscious bias may result in a prejudicial evaluation of another person and lead to unfair treatment. Potential gender bias risk exists in the scoring process on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation oral examination (Part II) because of the face-to-face interactions between candidates and examiners. This study was undertaken to determine whether performance on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination differed based on candidate gender or configuration of examiner/candidate gender pairings. The impact of examiner unconscious bias training on candidate performance was also assessed. ⋯ Women candidates scored higher and had a higher pass rate than men candidates overall on the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Part II examination. This difference does not seem to be due to scoring gender bias by the Part II examiners or due to candidate aptitude as measured on the Part I examination.