Search

Purpose: Curricula about social determinants (drivers) of health (SDOH) are becoming more common in medical education, reflecting increasing expectations from payers and accreditors that health care systems do more to address health-related social needs and close pervasive health equity gaps. Few previous reviews have addressed the content of SDOH-related curricula. This review examines the scope and focus of medical education on SDOH and adjacent concepts., Method: The authors screened 2,442 articles describing curricula delivered in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education settings between 2010 and 2023 using PubMed and 2 field-specific databases, yielding 289 articles. Data on course duration, pedagogic approach, assessment methods, and curricular content were extracted and analyzed. Curricular content was categorized using the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) 5As framework, which recommends 5 key activities health care can undertake to mitigate social risk (awareness, adjustment, assistance, alignment, and advocacy)., Results: A total of 289 articles were included in this review. Curricula covering SDOH-related concepts have increased over time. Of the included articles, 190 (65.7%) referenced at least 1 of NASEM's 5 key activities. Training on social risk screening and other awareness activities were noted most frequently [123 (42.6%)], followed by curricula on helping patients get social care [assistance; 86 (29.8%)] and providing social risk-adjusted health care [adjustment; 81 (28.0%)]. Curricula on system- and policy-level activities, including alignment of health care and social care organizations (alignment), and advocacy (advocacy) were described less frequently [43 (14.9%) and 49 (17.0%), respectively]. Ninety-four articles (32.5%) referenced only general information about SDOH without describing specific actions to adjust care or reduce social adversity., Conclusions: NASEM's 5As framework provides a useful construct for characterizing SDOH-related curricula. Medical educators should teach not only the prevalence and pathophysiology of SDOH but also what physicians can do to address these factors., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

The number of global health (GH) fellowships in the United States has increased over the past two decades. However, there are currently no standard requirements, shared core content, or widespread systems of accreditation. With the growth in programs, it is appropriate to consider these issues. We conducted a national survey to understand GH fellowship leaders' perspectives on the existence of core content and competencies and on the need for accreditation, including by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). We sent survey invitations to 123 fellowship leaders. Forty-five completed the survey (37%), representing seven specialties. Eighty-nine percent of respondents indicated that there is important core content for fellows to learn regardless of specialty; 30% indicated that accreditation would be "very" or "extremely" beneficial, whereas 21% indicated that it would be "not at all" beneficial. When asked what form of accreditation would result in training the most competent GH practitioners, 35% indicated that accreditation is unnecessary. Of those selecting a form of accreditation, the largest proportion (21%) selected accreditation from a professional society; 52% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" that ACGME accreditation is needed. More than 65% indicated that loss of training flexibility, funding restrictions, and increased administrative and fellow funding burdens are "very" or "extremely" important barriers. These results suggest that broad agreement on important core content exists across specialties, with a lack of consensus about the need for accreditation. More discussion with stakeholders, including international partners, is needed to understand their perceptions and build consensus before pursuing fellowship accreditation.

Introduction: Addressing the Social and Structural Determinants of Health (SSDH) is a primary strategy for attaining health equity. Teaching and learning about SSDH has increased across medical schools throughout the world; however, the published literature describing these efforts continues to be limited and many unknowns persist including what should be taught and by whom, what teaching methods and settings should be used, and how medical learners should be assessed., Materials and Methods: Based on published studies, input from experts in the field, and elements from the framework developed by the National Academy of Medicine, we created a universal Social and Structural Determinants of Health Curriculum Assessment Tool (SSDH CAT) to assist medical educators to assess existing SSDH curricular content, ascertain critical gaps, and categorize educational methods, delivery, and assessment techniques and tools that could help inform curricular enhancements to advance the goal of training a health care workforce focused on taking action to achieve health equity. To test the usefulness of the tool, we applied the SSDH CAT to map SSDH-related curriculum at a US-based medical school., Results: By applying the SSDH CAT to our undergraduate medical school curriculum, we recognized that our SSDH curriculum relied too heavily on lectures, emphasized knowledge without sufficient skill building, and lacked objective assessment measures. As a result of our curricular review, we added more skill-based activities such as using evidence-based tools for screening patients for social needs, and created and implemented a universal, longitudinal, experiential community health curriculum., Discussion: We created a universal SSDH CAT and applied it to assess and improve our medical school's SSDH curriculum. The SSDH CAT provides a starting point for other medical schools to assess their SSDH content as a strategy to improve teaching and learning about health equity, and to inspire students to act on the SSDH.

Purpose: Accreditation bodies have mandated teaching social determinants of health (SDH) to medical students, but there has been limited guidance for educators on what or how to teach, and how to evaluate students' competence. To fill this gap, this study aimed to develop an SDH curricular consensus guide for teaching SDH to medical students., Method: In 2017, the authors used a modified Delphi technique to survey an expert panel of educators, researchers, students, and community advocates about knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) and logistics regarding SDH teaching and assessment. They identified the panel and ranked a comprehensive list of topics based on a scoping review of SDH education studies and discussions with key informants. A total of 57 experts were invited., Results: Twenty-two and 12 panelists participated in Delphi rounds 1 and 2, respectively. The highest-ranked items regarding KSA were "Appreciation that the SDH are some of the root causes of health outcomes and health inequities" and "How to work effectively with community health workers." The panel achieved consensus that SDH should constitute 29% of the total curriculum and be taught continuously throughout the curriculum. Multiple-choice tests were ranked lowest as an assessment method, and patient feedback was ranked highest. Panelists noted that SDH content must be a part of standardized exams to be prioritized by faculty and students., Conclusions: An expert panel endorsed essential curricular content, teaching methods, and evaluation approaches that can be used to help guide medical educators regarding SDH curriculum development.