Giuliani M, Martimianakis MA(T, Broadhurst M, Papadakos J, Fazelzad R, Driessen EW, Frambach J. Motivations for and Challenges in the Development of Global Medical Curricula: A Scoping Review.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE : JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES 2021;
96:449-459. [PMID:
32271225 PMCID:
PMC7899747 DOI:
10.1097/acm.0000000000003383]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
The aim of this scoping review is to understand the motivations for the creation of global medical curricula, summarize methods that have been used to create these curricula, and understand the perceived premises for the creation of these curricula.
METHOD
In 2018, the authors used a comprehensive search strategy to identify papers on existing efforts to create global medical curricula published from 1998 to March 29, 2018, in the following databases: MEDLINE; MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; PsycINFO; CINAHL; ERIC; Scopus; African Index Medicus; and LILACS. There were no language restrictions. Two independent researchers applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Demographic data were abstracted from publications and summarized. The stated purposes, methods used for the development, stated motivations, and reported challenges of curricula were coded.
RESULTS
Of the 18,684 publications initially identified, 137 met inclusion criteria. The most common stated purposes for creating curricula were to define speciality-specific standards (50, 30%), to harmonize training standards (38, 23%), and to improve the quality or safety of training (31, 19%). The most common challenges were intercountry variation (including differences in health care systems, the operationalization of medical training, and sociocultural differences; 27, 20%), curricular implementation (20, 15%), and the need for a multistakeholder approach (6, 4%). Most curricula were developed by a social group (e.g., committee; 30, 45%) or Delphi or modified Delphi process (22, 33%).
CONCLUSIONS
The challenges of intercountry variation, the need for a multistakeholder approach, and curricular implementation need to be considered if concerns about curricular relevance are to be addressed. These challenges undoubtedly impact the uptake of global medical curricula and can only be addressed by explicit efforts to make curricula applicable to the realities of diverse health care settings.
Collapse