Abstract 204: Awareness and Interest in Neurointervention Among Medical Students
Authors: Kumar P. , Sharma S. , Singh R. , Sheth S. A. , Asif K. 
Published: January 2025

Introduction
Contemporary medical society remains largely unaware of the scope of practice and available training pathways for neurointervention (NI). This study assesses medical students’ awareness of NI training and practice, their interest in the field, and the effect of educational exposures on awareness and interest.

Methods
A cross‐sectional research design was used to electronically survey medical students at 22 schools during October and November 2023. Interest and awareness were measured by self‐reported Likert scale responses as well as objective responses to knowledge questions. Aspects of students’ educational exposures were also measured via student responses and review of institutional websites. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed using SPSS. Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess effects of educational exposures on student interest and awareness using significance of p<0.01.

Results
794 complete survey responses were received from 22 (12.2%) of 181 schools across 15 states, with an estimated response rate of 7.0%. 568 (72%) respondents were MD candidates, 226 (28%) DO candidates, 422 (55.2%) from public schools, with 223 (28%) first‐year students, 213 (27%) second‐years, 205 (26%) third‐years, and 132 (17%) fourth‐years. AWARENESS: 633 (80%) students reported they were unaware of NI scope of practice; 667 (85.1%) were unaware of NI training pathways. Students were familiar with a median of 5 of 10 (IQR 3‐7) common NI procedures. Only 196 (25%) correctly marked that NI procedures could be elective, urgent or emergent. 340 (43.4%) students were unsure which specialties could pursue NI fellowship training and only 36 (4.6%) students correctly identified all training pathways. 367 (46.8%) students were unsure whether NI was performed at their affiliated hospitals. INTEREST: 149 (19.0%) students were interested in pursuing a career in NI, 253 (32.3%) were unsure, and 382 (48.7%) were uninterested. 301 (47.4%) of 635 students who were unsure or uninterested indicated they would consider pursuing NI if they had more exposure to the field. EXPOSURE EFFECTS: Awareness of NI scope of practice and training pathways weakly correlated with increased interest in the field (r= 0.290, r= 0.266; p<0.01). Educational exposures that correlated most with awareness of NI included meeting a NI physician, trainee, or patient (r=0.50), NI clinical experience (r=0.33), pursuit of neurology or neurosurgery residencies (r=0.30, 0.31), and membership in a neurology or neurosurgery interest group (r=0.24, 0.33) (all p<0.01). NI clinical and research experience and advanced year in school were weakly correlated with increased awareness (r=0.25, 0.22, 0.33), while research experience and meeting a NI physician, trainee or patient (r=0.28, 0.25) weakly correlated with interest (all p<0.01). Advanced school year weakly correlated with decreased interest in the field (r=‐0.25; p<0.01). Student's degree candidacy (MD vs DO) and school administrative status (public vs private) did not affect awareness or interest.

Conclusion
Medical students are largely unaware of the scope of practice and available training pathways for neurointervention. Nevertheless, they display modest interest in NI and even greater potential interest if made more aware. Educators and clinicians can consider insights from this study to create interventions to foster greater awareness and interest in NI.