Ethics and Academic Discourse, Scientific Integrity, Uncertainty, and Disinformation in Medicine: An American College of Physicians Position Paper.

Respect for the scientific process and a diversity of views; open discourse and debate based on principles of ethics, best available evidence, and scientific inquiry and integrity; and an understanding of evidence gaps and uncertainty and how to communicate about them are important values in the advancement of science and the practice of medicine. Physicians often must make decisions about their recommendations to patients in the face of scarce or conflicting data. Are these characteristics of medicine and science widely understood and effectively communicated among members of the profession and to patients and the public? Issues of scientific integrity are longstanding, but COVID-19 brought them to the forefront, in an environment that was sometimes characterized by communication missteps as guidance came and went-or changed-quickly. Today, is open debate flourishing? Have some debates shed more heat than light? Are people losing confidence in science and medicine? In health care institutions? The American College of Physicians explores these issues and offers guidance in this position paper.

How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula. DESIGN: Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy. KEY RESULTS: More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%). CONCLUSION: Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.