Evaluation of a Novel Equity-Focused Curriculum for Early-Stage Medical Students.

Abstract

Medical school curricula have increasingly incorporated topics and content related to health equity and affiliated social determinants of health. However, there is limited literature to guide how programs might measure the success of these initiatives. Previous studies assessed medical student attitudes and perceived knowledge, preparedness, and skills. Based on self-reported measures of these attributes, we compared within-group and between-group differences at the onset of a novel equity-focused curriculum implementation. A multi-component approach to "thread" lectures, panel discussions, and other content dedicated to health equity concepts was assessed using adapted versions of two validated survey instruments of the measured constructs. Baseline data were collected prior to coursework and at follow-up early in students' second year assessed change attributable to the equity-focused curriculum thread, with additional comparison to a cohort of second-year students who had no exposure to the curriculum. Data were collected at the beginning of academic years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. The multivariate analysis of variance indicated significant change over time (p < 0.001) with the analyses of variance identifying students' perceived current skills and topic knowledge increasing over time. No significant differences were found between two separate groups of M2 students. Students' perceived skills at working with diverse patient populations and knowledge of topics focused on health equity increased across the study, despite a much smaller response rate for the same student cohort at follow-up. Students' perception that they are prepared to care for patients of diverse backgrounds was unaffected. Attitudinal assessment revealed a ceiling effect at baseline, which should be explored further with longitudinal assessment. For the ongoing effort to evaluate the success of equity-focused curricula and programs, this study contributes evidence of change on some but not all outcomes, and can help guide other programs in determining which outcomes best reflect areas of programmatic need and impact.