"It's Time to Do It, to Make It a Major Part of Medicine": Faculty Experience With a Shift Toward an Antioppressive Medical School Curriculum.

Abstract

Health inequities compel medical educators to transform curricula to prepare physicians to improve the health of diverse populations. This mandate requires curricular focus on antioppression, which is a change for faculty who learned and taught under a different paradigm. This study used the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to explore faculty perceptions of and experiences with a shift to a curriculum that prioritizes antioppressive content and process. In this qualitative study, authors interviewed faculty course directors and teachers at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine from March 2021 to January 2022. Questions addressed faculty experience and understanding regarding the curriculum shift toward antioppression, perceptions of facilitators and barriers to change, and their interactions with colleagues and learners about this change. Using the CBAM components as sensitizing concepts, the authors conducted thematic analysis. Sixteen faculty participated. Their perceptions of their experience with the first year of an antioppression curriculum initiative were characterized by 3 broad themes: (1) impetus for change, (2) personal experience with antioppressive curricular topics, and (3) strategies necessary to accomplish the change. Faculty described 3 driving forces for the shift toward antioppressive curricula: moral imperative, response to national and local events, and evolving culture of medicine. Despite broad alignment with the change, faculty expressed uncertainties on 3 subthemes: uncertainty about what is an antioppressive curriculum, the scientific perspective, and fear. Faculty also reflected on primary facilitators and barriers to accomplishing the change. The shift to an antioppressive curriculum compels faculty to increase their knowledge and skills and adopt a critical, self-reflective lens on the interplay of medicine and oppression. This study's findings can inform faculty development efforts and highlight curricular leadership and resources needed to support faculty through this type of curricular change.