Public and Population Health in U.S. Medical Education: A Review of Guidance in Extraordinary Times.

ABSTRACT: Generations of medical educators have recommended including public and population health (PPH) content in the training of U.S. physicians. The COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, epidemic gun violence, and the existential threats caused by climate change are currently unsubtle reminders of the essential nature of PPH in medical education and practice. To assess the state of PPH content in medical education, the authors reviewed relevant guidance, including policies, standards, and recommendations from national bodies that represent and oversee medical education for physicians with MD degrees.Findings confirm that guidance across the medical education continuum, from premedical education to continuing professional development, increasingly includes PPH elements that vary in specificity and breadth. Graduate medical education policies present the most comprehensive approach in both primary care and subspecialty fields. Behavioral, quantitative, social, and systems sciences are represented, although not uniformly, in guidance for every phase of training. Quantitative PPH skills are frequently presented in the context of research, but not in relation to the development of population health perspectives (e.g., evidence-based medicine, quality improvement, policy development). The interdependence between governmental public health and medical practice, environmental health, and the impact of structural racism and other systems of oppression on health are urgent concerns, yet are not consistently or explicitly included in curricular guidance. To prepare physicians to meet the health needs of patients and communities, educators should identify and address gaps and inconsistencies in PPH curricula and related guidance.Re-examinations of public health and health care systems in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic support the importance of PPH in physician training and practice, as physicians can help to bridge clinical and public health systems. This review provides an inventory of existing guidance (presented in the appendices) to assist educators in establishing PPH as an essential foundation of physician training and practice.

Public Health Is Essential: COVID-19's Learnable Moment for Medical Education.

The COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented challenge for this generation of physicians and for the health care system, has reawakened calls to strengthen the United States' public health systems. This global event is also a "learnable moment" for medical education-an opportunity to decisively incorporate public health, including public health systems, through the continuum of medical education. Although medical educators have made progress in integrating public health content into medical curricula, "public health" is not a phrase that is consistently used in curricular standards, and public health colleagues are not identified as unique and critical partners to improve and protect health. The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated how a strong public health system is necessary to support the health of patients and populations, as well as the practice of medicine. Partnerships between medical and public health communities, through individual- and population-based interventions, can also more effectively combat more common threats to health, such as chronic diseases, health inequities, and substance abuse.To achieve a more effective medicine-public health relationship in practice, curricula across the continuum of medical education must include explanations of public health systems, the responsibilities of physicians to their local and state governmental public health agencies, and opportunities for collaboration. Medical education should also prepare physicians to advocate for public health policies, programs, and funding in order to improve and protect the health of their patients and communities. Pandemic COVID-19 demonstrates with laser focus that all physicians are part of public health systems and that public health content has a distinct and essential place across the continuum of medical education to prepare physicians to participate in, collaborate with, and advocate for public health systems.

Public health and community medicine instruction and physician practice location.

BACKGROUND: Experts have historically recommended better integration of public health content into medical education. Whether this adoption is associated with physician practice location has not been studied. PURPOSE: To examine the association between medical student perception of their public health and community medicine instruction and practice location in a Health Professional Shortage Area. METHODS: Descriptive analysis and a regression model assessed the significance and strength of the association between medical student perception of their public health and community medicine instruction and practice location using data from the Medical School Graduation Questionnaire 1997-2004, 2013 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and 2013 Health Professional Shortage Areas. RESULTS: A higher proportion of medical students with an intent to practice in underserved areas reported inadequate instruction in public health and community medicine than those without such intentions. Students reporting adequate public health and community medicine instruction are slightly more likely to practice in a Health Professional Shortage Area, controlling for their intent to practice in underserved areas. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest an association between perceptions of public health and community medicine instruction and practice location. Improved public health and community medicine instruction may support medical students' preparation and ability to integrate public health skills into practices in underserved settings. More research is needed to ascertain factors enabling better incorporation of public health and community medicine in medical education.

Formal public health education and career outcomes of medical school graduates.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available evaluating the associations of formal public health education with long-term career choice and professional outcomes among medical school graduates. The objective of this study was to determine if formal public health education via completion of a masters of public health (MPH) degree among US medical school graduates was associated with early and long-term career choice, professional satisfaction, or research productivity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 1108 physicians (17.1% completed a MPH degree) who had 10-20 years of follow-up post medical school graduation. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared to their counterparts with no MPH, medical school graduates with a MPH were more likely to have completed a generalist primary care residency only [relative risk (RR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-2.29], obtain employment in an academic institution (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.33-2.37) or government agency (RR 3.26; 95% CI 1.89-5.38), and practice public health (RR 39.84; 95% CI 12.13-107.38) or primary care (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.18-2.05). Furthermore, medical school graduates with a MPH were more likely to conduct public health research (RR 8.79; 95% CI: 5.20-13.82), receive NIH or other federal funding (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.74-5.33), have four or more peer-reviewed publications (RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.56-2.60), and have five or more scientific presentations (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.70-2.98). CONCLUSION: Formal public health education via a MPH was associated with career choice and professional outcomes among physicians.

Student vaccination requirements of U.S. health professional schools: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Unvaccinated health care personnel are at increased risk for transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases to their patients. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that health care personnel, including students, receive measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, varicella, influenza, and pertussis vaccines. Prematriculation vaccination requirements of health professional schools represent an early opportunity to ensure that health care personnel receive recommended vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To examine prematriculation vaccination requirements and related policies at selected health professional schools in the United States and compare requirements with current ACIP recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using an Internet-based survey. SETTING: Medical and baccalaureate nursing schools in the United States and its territories. PARTICIPANTS: Deans of accredited medical schools granting MD (n = 130) and DO (n = 26) degrees and of baccalaureate nursing programs (n = 603). MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of MD-granting and DO-granting schools and baccalaureate nursing programs that require that entering students receive vaccines recommended by the ACIP for health care personnel. RESULTS: 563 schools (75%) responded. More than 90% of all school types required measles, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B vaccines for entering students; varicella vaccination also was commonly required. Tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccination was required by 66%, 70%, and 75% of nursing, MD-granting, and DO-granting schools, respectively. Nursing and DO-granting schools (31% and 45%, respectively) were less likely than MD-granting schools (78%) to offer students influenza vaccines free of charge. LIMITATIONS: Estimates were conservative, because schools that reported that they did not require proof of immunity for a given vaccine were considered not to require that vaccine. Estimates also were restricted to schools that train physicians and nurses. CONCLUSION: The majority of schools now require most ACIP-recommended vaccines for students. Medical and nursing schools should adopt policies on student vaccination and serologic testing that conform to ACIP recommendations and should encourage annual influenza vaccination by offering influenza vaccination to students at no cost. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Using the Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework to encourage curricular change.

The Healthy People Curriculum Task Force was established in 2002 to encourage implementation of Healthy People 2010 Objective 1.7: "To increase the proportion of schools of medicine, schools of nursing and health professional training schools whose basic curriculum for healthcare providers includes the core competencies in health promotion and disease prevention." In 2004, the Task Force published a Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework ("Framework") to help each profession assess and develop more robust approaches to this content in their training. During the 6 years since the publication of the Framework, the Task Force members introduced and disseminated it to constituents, facilitated its implementation at member schools, integrated it into initiatives that would influence training across schools, and adapted and applied the Framework to meet the data needs of the Healthy People 2010 Objective 1.7. The Framework has been incorporated into initiatives that help promote curricular change, such as accreditation standards and national board examination content, and efforts to disseminate the experiences of peers, expert recommendations, and activities to monitor and update curricular content. The publication of the revised Framework and the release of Healthy People 2020 (and the associated Education for Health Framework) provide an opportunity to review the efforts of the health professions groups to advance the kind of curricular change recommended in Healthy People 2010 and Healthy People 2020 and to appreciate the many strategies required to influence health professions curricula.

The roles of healthcare professionals in implementing clinical prevention and population health.

Across the health disciplines, clinical prevention and population health activities increasingly are recognized as integral to the practice of their professions. Most of the major clinical health professions organizations have begun incorporating clinical prevention and population health activities and services into educational curricula, the accreditation process, and training to affect clinical practice. Students in each health profession need to understand the roles played by those in other health professions. This understanding is a prerequisite for better communication and collaboration among the professions and for accomplishing the educational objectives included in Healthy People 2020 and organized using the Education for Health framework. To help accomplish these goals, this article summarizes each health profession's contributions to the field of prevention and population health, explains how the profession contributes to interprofessional education or practice, reviews specific challenges faced in the provision of these types of services, and highlights future opportunities to expand the provision of these services. Several general themes emerge from a review of the different health professions' contributions to this area. First, having well-trained prevention and population health professionals outside of the traditional public health field is important because prevention and population health activities occur in almost all healthcare settings. Second, because health professionals work in interprofessional teams in the clinical setting, training and educating all health professionals within interprofessional models would be prudent. Third, in order to expand services, reimbursement for health promotion counseling, preventive medicine, and disease management assistance needs to be appropriate for each of the professions.

Medical education for a healthier population: reflections on the Flexner Report from a public health perspective.

Abraham Flexner's 1910 report is credited with promoting critical reforms in medical education. Because Flexner advocated scientific rigor and standardization in medical education, his report has been perceived to place little emphasis on the importance of public health in clinical education and training. However, a review of the report reveals that Flexner presciently identified at least three public-health-oriented principles that contributed to his arguments for medical education reform: (1) The training, quality, and quantity of physicians should meet the health needs of the public, (2) physicians have societal obligations to prevent disease and promote health, and medical training should include the breadth of knowledge necessary to meet these obligations, and (3) collaborations between the academic medicine and public health communities result in benefits to both parties. In this article, commemorating the Flexner Centenary, the authors review the progress of U.S. and Canadian medical schools in addressing these principles in the context of contemporary societal health needs, provide an update on recent efforts to address what has long been perceived as a deficit in medical education (inadequate grounding of medical students in public health), and provide new recommendations on how to create important linkages between medical education and public health. Contemporary health challenges that require a public health approach in addition to one-on-one clinical skills include containing epidemics of preventable chronic diseases, reforming the health care system to provide equitable high-quality care to populations, and responding to potential disasters in an increasingly interconnected world. The quantitative skills and contextual knowledge that will prepare physicians to address these and other population health problems constitute the basics of public health and should be included throughout the continuum of medical education.

Clinical prevention and population health: curriculum framework for health professions.

The Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework is the initial product of the Healthy People Curriculum Task Force convened by the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Academic Health Centers. The Task Force includes representatives of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, nursing and nurse practitioners, dentistry, pharmacy, and physician assistants. The Task Force aims to accomplish the Healthy People 2010 goal of increasing the prevention content of clinical health professional education. The Curriculum Framework provides a structure for organizing curriculum, monitoring curriculum, and communicating within and among professions. The Framework contains four components: evidence base for practice, clinical preventive services-health promotion, health systems and health policy, and community aspects of practice. The full Framework includes 19 domains. The title "Clinical Prevention and Population Health" has been carefully chosen to include both individual- and population-oriented prevention efforts. It is recommended that all participating clinical health professions use this title when referring to this area of curriculum. The Task Force recommends that each profession systematically determine whether appropriate items in the Curriculum Framework are included in its standardized examinations for licensure and certification and for program accreditation.