PURPOSE: 1) To pilot a health disparities curriculum for incoming first year medical students and evaluate changes in knowledge. 2) To help students become aware of personal biases regarding racial and ethnic minorities. 3) To inspire students to commit to serving indigent populations.METHODS: First year students participated in a 5-day elective course held before orientation week. The course used the curricular goals that had been developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine Health Disparities Task Force. Thirty-two faculty members from multiple institutions and different disciplinary backgrounds taught the course. Teaching modalities included didactic lectures, small group discussions, off-site expeditions to local free clinics, community hospitals and clinics, and student-led poster session workshops. The course was evaluated by pre-post surveys.RESULTS: Sixty-four students (60% of matriculating class) participated. Survey response rates were 97-100%. Students' factual knowledge (76 to 89%, p<.0009) about health disparities and abilities to address disparities issues improved after the course. This curriculum received the highest rating of any course at the medical school (overall mean 4.9, 1 = poor, 5 = excellent).CONCLUSIONS: This innovative course provided students an opportunity for learning and exploration of a comprehensive curriculum on health disparities at a critical formative time.

No abstract

Health care providers hold negative explicit and implicit biases against marginalized groups of people such as racial and ethnic minoritized populations. These biases permeate the health care system and affect patients via patient–clinician communication, clinical decision making, and institutionalized practices. Addressing bias remains a fundamental professional responsibility of those accountable for the health and wellness of our populations. Current interventions include instruction on the existence and harmful role of bias in perpetuating health disparities, as well as skills training for the management of bias. These interventions can raise awareness of provider bias and engage health care providers in establishing egalitarian goals for care delivery, but these changes are not sustained, and the interventions have not demonstrated change in behavior in the clinical or learning environment. Unfortunately, the efficacy of these interventions may be hampered by health care providers’ work and learning environments, which are rife with discriminatory practices that sustain the very biases US health care professions are seeking to diminish. We offer a conceptual model demonstrating that provider-level implicit bias interventions should be accompanied by interventions that systemically change structures inside and outside the health care system if the country is to succeed in influencing biases and reducing health inequities. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Purpose There is little evidence regarding which factors and strategies are associated with high proportions of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in academic medicine. The authors conducted a national study of U.S. academic medicine departments to better understand the challenges, successful strategies, and predictive factors for enhancing racial and ethnic diversity among faculty (i.e., physicians with an academic position or rank). Method This was a mixed-methods study using quantitative and qualitative methods. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of eligible departments of medicine in 125 accredited U.S. medical schools, dichotomized into low-URM (bottom 50%) versus high-URM rank (top 50%). They used t tests and chi-squared tests to compare departments by geographic region, academic school rank, city type, and composite measures of “diversity best practices.” The authors also conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with a subsample from the highest-and lowest-quartile medical schools in terms of URM rank. Results Eighty-two medical schools responded (66%). Geographic region and academic rank were statistically associated with URM rank, but not city type or composite measures of diversity best practices. Key themes emerged from interviews regarding successful strategies for URM faculty recruitment and retention including institutional leadership, the use of human capital and social relationships and strategic deployment of institutional resources. Conclusions Departments of medicine with high proportions of URM faculty employ a number of successful strategies and programs for recruitment and retention. More research is warranted to identify new successful strategies and to determine the impact of specific strategies on establishing and maintaining workforce diversity.

Three-digit United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores have assumed an outsized role in residency selection decisions, creating intense pressure for medical students to obtain a high score on this exam. In February 2020, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners announced that Step 1 would transition to pass/fail scoring beginning in 2022. The authors discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of the pass/fail scoring change for underrepresented-in-medicine (UiM) trainees. UiM students may benefit from this change because it reduces the effect of an inequitable exam; helps correct for students who attend medical schools with a curriculum heavier on nontested formative elements; and decreases stress, improves quality of life, and undermines imposter syndrome. However, this change may also precipitate unforeseen challenges, such as increased discrimination toward UiM trainees, an increase in high-stakes test failures due to a reduced focus on preparing for standardized exams, or the development of new (e.g., subject exams) or overreliance on existing (e.g., school ranking) metrics that would make UiM residency candidates less competitive. To enhance UiM representation in the future health care workforce, it is imperative that national organizations (e.g., accrediting, licensing, regulatory, professional, honor, student, and faculty), hospitals, residency programs, and patient advocacy groups undertake a shared, rigorous approach in assessing the impact of the pass/fail scoring change on UiM applicants’ selection to specialty and subspecialty residencies.

Successfully teaching about race and racism requires a careful balance of emotional safety and honest truth-telling. Creating such environments where all learners can thrive and grow together is a challenge, but a consistently doable one. This article describes 12 lessons learned within 4 main themes: ground rules; language and communication; concepts of social constructs, intersectionality, and bidirectional biases; and structural racism, solutions, and advocacy. The authors’ recommendations for how to successfully teach health professions students about race and racism come from their collective experience of over 60 years of instruction, research, and practice. Proficiency in discussing race and addressing racism will become increasingly relevant as health care institutions strive to address the social needs of patients (e.g., food insecurity, housing instability) that contribute to poor health and are largely driven by structural inequities. Having interprofessional team-based care, with teams better able to understand and counteract their own biases, will be critical to addressing the social and structural determinants of health for marginalized patients. Recognizing that implicit biases about race impact both patients and health professions students from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds is a critical step toward building robust curricula about race and health equity that will improve the learning environment for trainees and reduce health disparities.

Medical schools and health care institutions should establish guidelines for students who identify as fluent in another language and are interested in interpreting for LEP patients in clinical settings, to protect both students and patients when language poses a barrier to quality care.

Background Advocacy is often described as a pillar of the medical profession. However, the impact of advocacy training on medical students’ identity as advocates in the medical profession is not well-described. Aim/Setting/Participants We sought to introduce an advocacy curriculum to a mandatory Health Care Disparities (HCD) course for 88 first year medical students. Program Description The 2013 HCD added advocacy curriculum that included: guest lecturers’ perspectives on their advocacy experience; reflective essay assignments assessing self-identify as an advocate; advocacy-specific lectures and large group discussions; and participation in small group community projects. Evaluation A mixed methods approached was used to evaluate 88 first year medical students’ advocacy themed reflective essays, independently coded by three investigators, and Likert-response questions were compared to published benchmarked items. The IRB exempted this study. Analysis of student essays revealed that students were better able to identify as an advocate in medicine. The survey also revealed that 86% post-course vs. 73% precourse agreed/strongly agreed with the statement: “I consider myself an advocate” (p=0.006). Discussion Exposing all medical students to advocacy within medicine may help shape and define their perceived professional role. Future work will explore adding advocacy and leadership skill training to the HCD course.