Penn Access Summer Scholars program: a mixed method analysis of a virtual offering of a premedical diversity summer enrichment program

Figures & data

Table 1. PASS on-campus versus virtual programing

PASS Program	Number of Weeks	Number of Hours/week	Mentor Research Activities	Program of Enrichment (Hours/week)	Near-Peer Mentoring
On-Campus (Usual program)	8	40	25	15	No
Virtual (Summer 2020)	6	40	15	25	Yes

Table 2. PASS program components and their elements

Program Components	Elements of Components	Comments
Research	1. Virtual mentored research	Included participation in virtual lab/research-related meetings, journal clubs, and conferences
	2. Weekly 1-on-1 meetings with research mentor	Focused on developing the mentor-mentee relationship
	3. Weekly online research modules	Topics included responsible conduct of research, reading a research article, creating a journal club presentation, designing a research poster, and communicating professionally
	4. Research presentations	This included work-in-progress and journal club presentations to PASS peers
Enrichment	1. Podcast discussions	Podcasts were drawn from a variety of sources and addressed topical issues in medicine, science and society; discussions were facilitated by the medical student coordinators
	2. Physician career narratives	Narratives were provided by physicians from diverse backgrounds and clinical disciplines
	3. Virtual clinical encounters	Participants met and conversed with a physician and one of their patients
	4. Book club discussions	Discussed ‘No Apparent Distress’ by Rachel Pearson, MD; discussions were led by assigned PASS participants
	5. Didactics	Topics presented included: child abuse and advocacy, cultural competency, diversity in biomedical science, imposter syndrome, and trauma chaplaincy
	6. Virtual ‘field trips’	These included a virtual visit to the Philadelphia Museum of Art for art observation training and a virtual culinary medicine experience
Near-peer Mentoring/ Facilitation	1. Facilitation of weekly team-building activities	Served to intentionally foster the cohesion of the cohort of participants
	2. Facilitation of weekly group reflections on the PASS experiences	Enabled an opportunity to revisit, process, and contextualize the various program experiences
	3. Facilitation of Podcast discussions	The medical students provided framing and context to understand the broader significances of the podcasts
	4. 1-on-1 meetings with PASS participants	A critical element of the advising/coaching provided by the program
	5. Hosting of ‘Game Nights’	The Game Nights were opportunities for the PASS participants to come together for fun activities outside of the required programing
Advising/ Coaching	Each participant had a 1-on-1 meeting with one of the medical student coordinators, the program staff coordinator and program faculty director	The goal was to enable supportive relationships that facilitate participants’ transition to medical school and which can be leveraged in the future

Table 3. Participant characteristics

Characteristics	Participants Number (%) (N = 15)
Gender (Self-identified)
Female	9 (60.0%)
Male	6 (40.0%)
Ethnicity (Self-identified)
Asian	1 (6.7%)
Black/African American	11 (73.3%)
Hispanic/Latinx	3 (20.0%)
FGLI Identity (Self-identified)
First-generation	2 (13.3%)
First-generation and low-income	3 (20.0%)
Low-income	4 (26.7%)
Neither/Prefer not to answer	6 (40.0%)
Returning vs. First-Year Participant
Returning	6 (40.0%)
First-Year	9 (60.0%)
Participants’ College/University
Bryn Mawr College	1 (6.7%)
Haverford College	1 (6.7%)
Howard University	1 (6.7%)
Morehouse College	1 (6.7%)
Oakwood University	3 (20.0%)
Princeton University	2 (13.3%)
Spelman College	1 (6.7%)
University of Pennsylvania	3 (20.0%)
Xavier University of Louisiana	2 (13.3%)
Participants’ Undergraduate Major
Biology/Biology-Related	10 (66.7%)
Computer Science	1 (6.7%)
Mathematics	1 (6.7%)
Engineering	1 (6.7%)
Psychology	1 (6.7%)
Sports Medicine	1 (6.7%)

Table 4. Summary of participant responses to Likert-style questions on their PASS experience*

Item	Pre-Program (N = 15)	Post-Program (N = 15)	P value (for weighted means)
	Weighted Mean (SD)	Weighted Mean (SD)
Section A
The PASS program accomplished all five of its stated goals for the summer		4.73 (0.46)
I would recommend the PASS program to my peers		4.87 (0.35)
Section B
I would rate my knowledge and understanding of what it means to be a physician as	3.13 (0.52)	4.00 (0.38)	< 0.001
Compared to the start of the program, my knowledge and understanding of what it means to be a physician increased significantly by the end of the program		4.60 (0.51)
Section C
I would rate my competence in doing research as	3.07 (0.70)	3.53 (0.52)	0.007
Compared to the start of the program, my competence and confidence in doing research increased significantly by the end of the program		4.33 (0.62)
Section D
I would rate the quality of the relationship between my research PI and as		4.40 (0.51)
I would rate my interest in my research project as		4.07 (0.70)
Section E
There was a sense of community and cohesion among the PASS students at the end of the program		4.67 (0.49)
I would rate the quality of the relationship between myself and the medical student coordinators as		4.33 (0.82)
I would rate the quality of the relationship between myself and the program coordinators as		4.27 (0.70)
I would rate the quality of the relationship between myself and the program director as		4.27 (0.70)
Section F
I would rate my preparedness to be a PSOM student as	3.27 (0.88)	3.93 (0.59)	0.003
Compared to the start of the program, I feel better prepared to be a Perelman student		4.13 (0.52)

*1 = strongly disagree/poor, 2 = disagree/fair, 3 = neutral/good, 4 = agree/excellent, 5 = strongly agree/outstanding.