Table 4.
Financial (12 articles; 18.2% total).
| First author, Year of publication4 | Type | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Baugh and Baugh (2022) | Scholarly opinion | Authors conclude that the current financial aid system’s reliance on high debt burden undermines goals to recruit and matriculate URiM students to medical school. |
| Carnevale and Strohl (2013) | Report of analysis of enrollment trends at 4,400 postsecondary institutions by race and institutional selectivity. | Key findings: |
| 82% of new white enrollments have gone to the 468 most selective colleges, while enrollments for Hispanics (72%) and African Americans (68%) have gone to 2-year and 4-year open-access schools. | ||
| Selective colleges spend anywhere from two to almost five times as much on instruction per student as the open-access colleges. | ||
| More than 30% of AA and Hispanics with a high school GPA higher than 3.5 go to community colleges compared to 22% of whites with the same GPA. | ||
| Carnevale and Smith (2018) | Policy brief | Low-income students are less likely to complete college and are more susceptible to dropping out. |
| Low-income students are less likely to enroll in 4-year or selective institutions or to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. | ||
| Low-income students who work while enrolled are more likely to work outside of their fields. | ||
| Working while enrolled generally tends to benefit higher-income students and tends to harm or disadvantage low-income students, but low-income students often have less of a real choice about whether and how much to work. | ||
| Fenton et al. (2016) | Single institution study of 14,919 medical school applicants. | A method of adjusting applicant GPA and MCAT scores for SES based on application data was simulated and tested. |
| Goal: To determine if an applicants’ cumulative pre-medical grade point average and total MCAT score could be adjusted for socioeconomically status (SES). | The adjustment methods reduced or eliminated disparities in URiM and disadvantaged student representation. | |
| Grbic and Roskovensky (2012) | National Study of 14,389 first-time applicants who were not accepted to medical school. | 5,282 (37%) of the 14,389 first-time nonaccepted applicants became repeat applicants and 40% (2,121) of these were accepted to medical school. |
| Goal: To explore factors associated with becoming a repeat applicant to medical school. | Applicants who had more than $20,000 of educational debt were less likely to become repeat applicants. | |
| Grbic et al. (2015) | National data of 38,558 medical school applicants for whom a socioeconomic indicator could be assigned. | Compared with Asian and white applicants, African American and Hispanic applicants were more often categorized as low EO status. |
| Goal: To validate a socioeconomic indicator based on parental education (E) and occupation (O) for use in medical school admissions | There were moderate to strong associations between the EO categories and indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage. | |
| Joseph O. R. et al. (2021) | Single-institution study of 35 undergraduate or postbaccalaureate participants (48% URiM). | Lack of appropriate financial resources for the application processes including admissions testing, traveling for interviews, medical school fees, and lodging expenses were cited as major barriers. |
| Qualitative survey. | ||
| Goal: To determine barriers/facilitators to pursuing a medical career. | ||
| Michalec and Hafferty (2023) | Mixed-methods study (quantitative and qualitative approaches). | Authors conclude that the PMP is constructed to favor those from high socioeconomic status, privileged backgrounds, and those majoring in typical premed majors such as in the Biological Sciences. |
| Goal: To identify potential (explicit and implicit) exclusionary practices, processes, and mechanisms in the premedical pathway (PMP). | ||
| Poll-Hunter et al. (2023) | Scholarly perspective from the action collaborative for black men in medicine (launched by AAMC and the National Medical Association). | Multiple hurdles exist including financial considerations, academic hurdles and information access. |
| Goal: To address the systems and factors that influence the trajectory to medicine for Black men. | ||
| Talamantes et al. (2014) | National study of 40,491 matriculant and applicant files and 17,518 matriculating students. | Among Latino matriculants to medical school, 65.6% (1,028/1,566) did not attend a CC. |
| Goal: To assess associations between student characteristics and participation in a more economically viable community college (CC) pathway. | Applicants who attended a CC had a significantly longer number of years in college before application to medical school 4.6 ± 1.8 (N = 12,598) vs. 6.8 ± 3.9 (N = 1,920). | |
| Compared with the 27% of white matriculants who used CC pathways, 34% of Latinos and 28% of Black matriculants used CC pathways. | ||
| Thomas and Dockter (2019) | Commentary | Authors recommend that medical schools must maintain or increase support for STEM academic enrichment programs at all levels. Additionally, they should support a holistic admissions process that considers race and socioeconomic status. |
| Toretsky et al. (2018) | Literature review and interviews to summarize known barriers to URiM students entering the health professions. | Financial challenges are even more pronounced for URiMs than other racial/ethnic groups as they are more likely to have lower socio-economic status. |
4Publications referenced by first author and year.