The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools

Brandon H. Hidaka, Anila Asghar, C. Athena Aktipis, Randolph M. Nesse, Terry M. Wolpaw, Nicole K. Skursky, Katelyn J. Bennett, Matthew W. Beyrouty, Mark D. Schwartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.

BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education.

METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits.

RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalBMC Medical Education
Volume15
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Medical Schools
Curriculum
Medicine
medicine
Education
school
curriculum
coverage
education
Teaching
resources
expertise
Chi-Square Distribution
Microbial Drug Resistance
Medical Education
Patient Care
Public Health
Students
mismatch
Physicians

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Hidaka, B. H., Asghar, A., Aktipis, C. A., Nesse, R. M., Wolpaw, T. M., Skursky, N. K., ... Schwartz, M. D. (2015). The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools. BMC Medical Education, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0322-5
Hidaka, Brandon H. ; Asghar, Anila ; Aktipis, C. Athena ; Nesse, Randolph M. ; Wolpaw, Terry M. ; Skursky, Nicole K. ; Bennett, Katelyn J. ; Beyrouty, Matthew W. ; Schwartz, Mark D. / The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools. In: BMC Medical Education. 2015 ; Vol. 15.
@article{a735187f9812466b97e2e44603f2543d,
title = "The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools",
abstract = "CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education.METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits.RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39{\%}) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21{\%} (SD = 6{\%}). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74{\%} more schools. Nearly half (48{\%}) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care.",
author = "Hidaka, {Brandon H.} and Anila Asghar and Aktipis, {C. Athena} and Nesse, {Randolph M.} and Wolpaw, {Terry M.} and Skursky, {Nicole K.} and Bennett, {Katelyn J.} and Beyrouty, {Matthew W.} and Schwartz, {Mark D.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s12909-015-0322-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
journal = "BMC Medical Education",
issn = "1472-6920",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

Hidaka, BH, Asghar, A, Aktipis, CA, Nesse, RM, Wolpaw, TM, Skursky, NK, Bennett, KJ, Beyrouty, MW & Schwartz, MD 2015, 'The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools', BMC Medical Education, vol. 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0322-5

The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools. / Hidaka, Brandon H.; Asghar, Anila; Aktipis, C. Athena; Nesse, Randolph M.; Wolpaw, Terry M.; Skursky, Nicole K.; Bennett, Katelyn J.; Beyrouty, Matthew W.; Schwartz, Mark D.

In: BMC Medical Education, Vol. 15, 01.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools

AU - Hidaka, Brandon H.

AU - Asghar, Anila

AU - Aktipis, C. Athena

AU - Nesse, Randolph M.

AU - Wolpaw, Terry M.

AU - Skursky, Nicole K.

AU - Bennett, Katelyn J.

AU - Beyrouty, Matthew W.

AU - Schwartz, Mark D.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education.METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits.RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care.

AB - CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education.METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits.RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988810025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988810025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12909-015-0322-5

DO - 10.1186/s12909-015-0322-5

M3 - Article

VL - 15

JO - BMC Medical Education

JF - BMC Medical Education

SN - 1472-6920

ER -