Anti-racism curricula in undergraduate medical education: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Medical educators have increasingly focused on the systemic effects of racism on health inequities in the United States (U.S.) and globally. There is a call for educators to teach students how to actively promote an anti-racist culture in healthcare. This scoping review assesses the existing undergraduate medical education (UME) literature of anti-racism curricula, implementation, and assessment. METHODS: The Ovid, Embase, ERIC, Web of Science, and MedEdPORTAL databases were queried on 7 April 2023. Keywords included anti-racism, medical education, and assessment. Inclusion criteria consisted of any UME anti-racism publication. Non-English articles with no UME anti-racism curriculum were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, followed by full-text appraisal. Data was extracted using a predetermined framework based on Kirkpatrick's educational outcomes model, Miller's pyramid for assessing clinical competence, and Sotto-Santiago's theoretical framework for anti-racism curricula. Study characteristics and anti-racism curriculum components (instructional design, assessment, outcomes) were collected and synthesized. RESULTS: In total, 1064 articles were screened. Of these, 20 met the inclusion criteria, with 90% (n = 18) published in the past five years. Learners ranged from first-year to fourth-year medical students. Study designs included pre- and post-test evaluations (n = 10; 50%), post-test evaluations only (n = 7; 35%), and qualitative assessments (n = 3; 15%). Educational interventions included lectures (n = 10, 50%), multimedia (n = 6, 30%), small-group case discussions (n = 15, 75%), large-group discussions (n = 5, 25%), and reflections (n = 5, 25%). Evaluation tools for these curricula included surveys (n = 18; 90%), focus groups (n = 4; 20%), and direct observations (n = 1; 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review highlights the growing attention to anti-racism in UME curricula. We identified a gap in published assessments of behavior change in applying knowledge and skills to anti-racist action in UME training. We also provide considerations for developing UME anti-racism curricula. These include explicitly naming and defining anti-racism as well as incorporating longitudinal learning opportunities and assessments.

Leading the Charge: Effectiveness of a Workshop to Enhance Faculty Education of Health Inequity.

INTRODUCTION: Medical educators in residency programs have unique opportunities to teach health inequities, social determinants of health (SDOH), and implicit bias. However, faculty are not adequately trained to effectively teach these topics. The aim is to assess the effectiveness of a faculty-level workshop to teach health inequity. METHODS: An interactive workshop was designed by an interprofessional faculty from a major urban teaching hospital, addressing SDOH, implicit bias, an "Enhanced Social History," and the benefits of interprofessional care. Before and after completion, workshop participants completed surveys regarding comfort in teaching these concepts. Survey results were analyzed to assess benefits of the intervention. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop surveys. Participants reported increased contemplation and improved comfort in teaching SDOH, barriers to medical care, and implicit bias. CONCLUSION: Faculty comfort in teaching health inequity increased after this workshop. This may help bridge the gap between the expectation of clinical faculty to evaluate trainee practice of patient-centered, culturally competent care, and faculty possession of and confidence in health inequity teaching skills in clinical settings. Future research should focus on learner- and patient-based outcomes, including teaching time and impact on delivery of care.

Performance-based versus patient-reported physical function: what are the underlying predictors?

BACKGROUND: Functional limitations have been operationally defined for studies of rehabilitation science through measures of physical performance and patient-reported function. Although conceived as representing similar concepts, differences between these 2 modes of measuring physical functioning have not been adequately characterized scientifically. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) with the function component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) with respect to their association with physiologic factors and other psychosocial and health factors potentially influencing rehabilitative care. DESIGN: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a sample of community-dwelling older adults (N=137) with mobility limitations enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of exercise. METHODS: A performance-based measure of function (the SPPB) and a self-report measure of function (the LLFDI) served as functional outcomes. Physiologic factors included measures of leg strength, leg velocity, and exercise tolerance test (ETT) duration, which served as a surrogate measure of aerobic capacity. Psychosocial and health factors included age, sex, height, body mass index, number of chronic conditions, depression, and falls efficacy. RESULTS: Separate multivariable regression models predicting SPPB and LLFDI scores described 33% and 42% of the variance in each outcome (R(2)), respectively. Leg velocity and ETT duration were positively associated with both performance-based and patient-reported functional measures. Leg strength and age were positively associated with SPPB scores, whereas number of chronic conditions, sex, and falls efficacy were associated with the LLFDI scores. LIMITATIONS: This study included older adults with mobility limitations and may not generalize to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: Performance-based and patient-reported measures of physical function appear to assess different aspects of an older person's functioning. The SPPB was associated with age and physiologic factors, whereas patient-reported function measured by the LLFDI was associated with these factors as well as with psychosocial and health factors.