Search

Commercial-off-the-shelf learning platforms developed for medical education (herein referred to as MedED-COTS) have emerged as a resource used by a majority of medical students to prepare for licensing examinations. As MedED-COTS proliferate and include more functions and features, there is a need for an up-to-date review to inform medical educators on (a) students' use of MedED-COTS outside the formal medical school curriculum, (b) the integration of MedED-COTS into the formal curriculum, and (c) the potential effects of MedED-COTS usage on students' national licensing exam scores in the USA. Due to the limited number of studies published on either the use or integration of MedED-COTS, a focused review of literature was conducted to guide future research and practice. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted independently by three reviewers; with disagreements resolved by a fourth reviewer. A narrative synthesis was completed to answer research questions, contextualize results, and identify trends and issues in the findings reported by the studies included in the review. Results revealed consistent positive correlations between students' use of question banks and their licensing exam performance. The limited number of integration studies, combined with a number of methodological issues, makes it impossible to isolate specific effects or associations of integrated commercial resources on standardized test or course outcomes. However, consistent positive correlations, along with students' pervasive use and strong theoretical foundations explaining the results, provide evidence for integrating MedED-COTS into medical school curricula and highlight the need for further research. Based on findings, we conclude that students use exam preparation materials broadly and they have a positive impact on exam results; the literature on integration of MedED-COTS into formal curriculum and the use by students of resources outside of exam preparation is scant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is no current centralized database of structured global health programs at U.S. medical schools and no published review in the past decade. This study aims to describe the prevalence, characteristics, and requirements of non-degree, longitudinal, structured global health programs in U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. In July 2021, the authors performed a web-based review of existing structured global health programs for the 154 U.S. allopathic medical schools and 35 U.S. osteopathic medical schools established prior to 2019. Of 189 institutions examined, 74 (39%) had online information about a structured global health program. Forty-three (53%) programs reported coursework requirements, 44 (54%) required a global health experience, and one program required demonstration of language or cultural knowledge. More internally administered programs required experiential work, while more externally administered programs required didactic work. There were few differences in program requirements between allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. There has been a 75% increase over the past ten years in the number of U.S. allopathic medical schools with websites for structured global health programs. There appeared to be little standardization in their structure and requirements. The findings support the need for a web-based central repository for updated information regarding medical school global health curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]