Admissions adaptations to widespread disruption: a multiple case study of Canadian medical school responses to a constellation of social phenomena
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/066n3310Abstract
Background: Social phenomena can disrupt education systems, promoting rapid adaptations that shift which values are prioritized in institutional processes. Between 2020 and 2023, a constellation of such phenomena impacted Canadian medical education admissions systems. In this study, we used the Theory of Social Innovation to explore how the adaptive responses shifted, uprooted, or entrenched institutional values in selection systems across the country.
Methods: We used a multiple case study approach to catalogue adaptations made at Canadian medical schools. Our original focus was on pandemic-driven changes but was expanded to include other phenomena raised by participants. Initial exploratory cases examined distinctive 2020 adaptations at Université de Montréal (cancelled interviews), University of Toronto (virtual interviews), and McMaster University (partial lottery). These were followed by an explanatory case bounded to the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada’s Network on Admissions.
Results: We interviewed 37 individuals from 13 medical schools and reviewed 67 case-relevant documents. Adaptations responded to the pandemic, widespread calls for racial justice, and the rise of artificial intelligence, and included virtual interviews, actuarial approaches, and dedicated pathways for structurally excluded groups. Participants regarded these phenomena as opportunities to affirm and rebalance institutional values, while emphasizing the impact of landscape-level influences on local decisions.
Conclusions: These findings prompt Canadian medical schools to consider how recent disruptions may have moved their selection policies away from their intended purposes and whether shifts are locally desirable. Reflection on change can promote values-based decision making in the face of social phenomena.
References
1. Birch S. Health human resource planning for the new millennium: inputs in the production of health, illness, and recovery in populations. Can J Nurs Res. 2002; 33(4):109-114.
2. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Disparities in primary health care experiences among Canadians with ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Ottawa (ON): CIHI; 2012. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/phc-experiences-among-canadians-analysis-brief-2012-en.pdf [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
3. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Supply, distribution and migration of Canadian physicians, 2012. Ottawa (ON): CIHI; 2013. Available from: Supply, Distribution and Migration of Canadian Physicians, ...Publications du gouvernement du Canadahttps://publications.gc.ca › H115-23-2012-eng [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
4. Herbert R. Canada's health care challenge: recognizing and addressing the health needs of rural Canadians. Lethbridge (AB): University of Lethbridge; 2007. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10133/495 [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
5. Institute of Medicine. Quality through collaboration: the future of rural health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2005.
6. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC). Canadian medical education statistics 2024. Ottawa (ON): AFMC; 2025. Available from: https://www.afmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CMES-2024-Complete-EN.pdf [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
7. Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools (CACMS). CACMS standards and elements: standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. Ottawa (ON): CACMS; 2023. Available from: https://cacms-cafmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CACMS_Standards_and_Elements_AY_2022-2023.pdf [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
8. Hanson MD, Moineau G, Kulasegaram KM, Hammond R. Is Canada ready for nationwide collaboration on medical school admissions practices and policies? Acad Med. 2016;91(11):1501 8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001286.
9. Ellaway R, Mahli HR, Bajaj S, Walker I, Myhre D. A critical scoping review of the connections between social mission and medical school admissions: BEME Guide No. 47. Med Teach. 2018;40(3):219 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1406662
10. Marrin M, McIntosh K, Keane D, et al. Use of the paired comparison technique to determine the most valued qualities of the McMaster medical programme admissions process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9:129-35. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ahse.0000027439.18289.00
11. Young ME, Shankar S, St-Onge C. An exploration of values in medical school admissions processes: the interplay between contextual factors, admissions practices, and validity. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2024;29(4):1285-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10307-x
12. Kulatunga Moruzi C, Norman GR. Validity of admissions measures in predicting performance outcomes. The contribution of cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14(1):34-42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1401_9
13. Salvatori P. Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select students for the health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2001;6(2):159-75. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011489618208
14. Siu E, Reiter HI. Overview: what’s worked and what hasn’t as a guide towards predictive admissions tool development. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(5):759-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9160-8
15. Schripsema NR, van Trigt AM, Borleffs JCC, Cohen Schotanus J. Selection and study performance: comparing three admission processes within one medical school. Med Educ. 2014;48(12):1201-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12537
16. Eva KW, Reiter HI, Rosenfeld J, et al. Association between a medical school admission process using the multiple mini interview and national licensing examination scores. JAMA. 2012;308(21):2233-40. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2012.36914
17. Burgess R, Vanstone M, Mountjoy M, Grierson L. Lines in the sand: pre-interview rank and probability of receiving admission to medical school. Can Med Educ J. 2019;10(3):e49. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.61275
18. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC). The future of medical education in Canada (FMEC): a collective vision for MD education. Ottawa (ON): AFMC; 2010. Available at: https://www.afmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2010-FMEC-MD_EN.pdf. [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
19. Greenberg J. Advances in organizational justice. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 2002.
20. De Freitas C, Grierson L, Vanstone M. When I say… merit. Med Educ. 2019;53(9):858-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13894
21. Chapman CH, Jagsi R. The ethical imperative to ensure equity and diversity in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(2):269-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.04.015
22. Razack S, Hodges B, Steinert Y, Maguire M. Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: discourses of medical school student selection. Med Educ. 2015;49(1):36-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12547
23. Razack S, Risør T, Hodges B, Steinert Y. Beyond the cultural myth of medical meritocracy. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13871
24. Boelen C. Global consensus on the social accountability of medical schools. Sante Publique. 2011;23(3):247-50.
25. Strasser RP, Lanphear JH, McCready WG, Topps MH, Hunt DD, Matte MC. Canada’s new medical school school: the Northern Ontario School of Medicine: social accountability through distributed community engaged learning. Acad Med. 2009;84(10):1459 64. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181b6c5d7
26. McGowan K, Westley F. At the root of change: the history of social innovation. In: New frontiers in social innovation research. London (UK): Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 52 68. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137506801_3.
27. Westley F, Zimmerman B, Quinn Patton M. Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto (ON): Random House; 2006.
28. Westley F, McGowan K, Tjörnbo O. The history of social innovation [Keynote speech]. In: NESTA Social Frontiers Conference London (UK); 2013.
29. Kauffman S. Investigations. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2000. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195121049.001.0001.
30. Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, et al. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio. 2011;40(7):762-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9
31. Kaul V, de Moraes AG, Khateeb D, et al. Medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest. 2021;159(5):1949-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.12.026
32. Mehta N, Sayed C, Sharma R, Do V. Medical education advances and innovations: a silver lining during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can Med Educ J. 2020;11(6):e141-4. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70926
33. Kulasegaram K, Baxan V, Giannone E, Latter D, Hanson MD. Adapting the admissions interview during COVID-19: a comparison of in-person and video-based interview validity evidence. Acad Med. 2022;97(2):200 6. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004331
34. Elam CL, Wagoner NE. Legacy admissions in medical school. AMA J Ethics. 2012;14 https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.12.ecas3-1212
35. Helsper E. Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. London (UK): Department for Communities and Local Government; 2008. Available from: https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/26938/1/__libfile_REPOSITORY_Content_Helsper%2C%20E_Digital%20inclusion_Helsper_Digital%20inclusion_2013.pdf. [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
36. Warren M. The digital vicious cycle: links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecomm Policy. 2007;31(6-7):374-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.001
37. Parrish DE, Negi N, Mogro-Wilson C. The hidden cost of caregiving during the pandemic. J Soc Work Educ. 2021;57:211-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1913019
38. North D. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1990.
39. Yin RK. Case study research and applications. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2018.
40. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Admission requirements of Canadian faculties of medicine: admission in 2024. Ottawa (ON): AFMC; 2024. Available from: https://www.afmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Admission-Requirements-of-Canadian-Faculties-of-Medicine-2024-EN.pdf. [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
41. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2014.
42. Noy C. Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2008;11(4):327-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305
43. Morse JM. The significance of saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):147-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201
44. O’Brien B, Allen L, Sethi A, van Schalkwyk M, Palermo C. Introducing pragmatic approaches in health professions education research. In: Rees CEML, O’Brien BC, Gordon LJ, Palermo C, editors. Foundations of health professions education research. Oxford (UK): Wiley Blackwell; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394322213.ch9
45. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4%3C334::aid-nur9%3E3.0.co;2-g
46. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
47. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
48. Baron M. Acting from duty. In: Wood A, editor. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 2002. p. 92-110.
49. Wood AW. Kantian ethics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2007.
50. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC). The future of admission in Canada think tank (FACTT): proposed strategy for enhancing admissions. Ottawa (ON): AFMC; 2020. Available from: https://www.afmc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2020-04-22-FACTT-strategy_en.pdf. [Accessed on May 12, 2026]
51. Lam J, Phillips C, Okafor I. COVID-19: an urgent opportunity to decrease financial barriers to medical school admissions. Can Med Educ J. 2020;11(6):e163-4. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70219
52. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lawrence Grierson, Asiana Elma, Aimun Q Shah, Jean-Michel Leduc, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Alice Cavanagh, Amar Farkouh, Justin Lam, Dilshan Pieris, Sophie Boies, Augustine Okoh, Roberta Soares, Jenny Lee Zhao, Mark D Hanson

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.



