Time-variable medical education innovation in context
Received 28 January 2018
Accepted for publication 26 March 2018
Published 20 June 2018 Volume 2018:9 Pages 469—481
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Md Anwarul Azim Majumder
Christopher D Stamy,1 Christine C Schwartz,1 Danielle A Phillips,2 Aparna S Ajjarapu,3 Kristi J Ferguson,4,5 Debra A Schwinn6–8
1University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, 2Des Moines University Osteopathic Medical Center, Des Moines, 3University of Iowa, 4Office of Consultation & Research in Medical Education, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 5Department of Internal Medicine, 6Department of Anesthesia, 7Department of Biochemistry, 8Department of Pharmacology, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, IA, USA
Background: Medical education is undergoing robust curricular reform with several innovative models emerging. In this study, we examined current trends in 3-year Doctor of Medicine (MD) education and place these programs in context.
Methods: A survey was conducted among Deans of U.S. allopathic medical schools using structured phone interview regarding current availability of a 3-year MD pathway, and/or other variations in curricular innovation, within their institution. Those with 3-year programs answered additional questions.
Results: Data from 107 institutions were obtained (75% survey response rate). The most common variation in length of medical education today is the accelerated 3-year pathway. Since 2010, 9 medical schools have introduced parallel 3-year MD programs and another 4 are actively developing such programs. However, the total number of students in 3-year MD tracks remains small (n=199 students, or 0.2% total medical students). Family medicine and general internal medicine are the most common residency programs selected. Benefits of 3-year MD programs generally include reduction in student debt, stability of guaranteed residency positions, and potential for increasing physician numbers in rural/underserved areas. Drawbacks include concern about fatigue/burnout, difficulty in providing guaranteed residency positions, and additional expense in teaching 2 parallel curricula. Four vignettes of alternative innovative and relevant curricular initiatives are also presented in order to place 3-year MD programs in a broader context of medical education reform in the U.S.
Conclusion: Three-year MD pathways are the most common accelerated alternative available at a small number of medical schools for highly selected students. Long-term evaluation of these programs will be essential to determine if these programs are meeting their goals (e.g., increasing the number of physicians in rural/underserved areas). Benefits and shortcomings of such programs should be carefully examined when considering this approach, or others described, as part of MD curricular options designed to individualize medical education.
Keywords: pedagogy, curriculum, 3-year MD, medical students, medical school, reform
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]