The New Faculty Myth‐busters: Pharmacology Educators and Curators of Information

Abstract

IntroductionAs we move towards completion of a second year of remote medical pharmacology instruction due to the Covid‐19 global pandemic, osteopathic medical students are also dealing with changes in the USMLE Step‐1 and/or COMLEX Level‐1 with the new Pass/Fail System in 2022. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z are inundated with an abundance of digital information that is readily and freely available, including professional advice from external sources which are not part of the formal curriculum (unspecified social networks, handed down Anki cards, etc.). Misinformation and/or misconstrued or unqualified advice for rapidly mastering pharmacology material over time can lead to development of myths which can be found in comments provided within the student evaluation of faculty. Identifying trends and/or myths in the feedback provided by the students can serve as a meaningful tool for faculty self‐reflection and will also help faculty steer students away from common misinformation as well.MethodsThe aggregate data reported in Medical School Year Two Questionnaire All Schools Summary Reportpublished by the AAMC at the end of the second year of medical education (Years 2014‐2021) was used to develop a construct of trends in medical student usage of YouTube and/or Wikipedia as a source for medical information. Faculty involved in the instruction of pharmacology at the Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine convened to review student feedback of pharmacology faculty collected between 2020 and 2021. Student feedback was examined to identify facts and myths, and these were further categorized to develop approaches to address these concerns in the future.ResultsThe use of Wikipedia has continually declined and the reliance on YouTube has increased as a resource of medical knowledge. Although this was already happening before the pandemic, the shift to other unspecified resources for medical knowledge during remote learning is of concern. In our institution, the review of pharmacology specific feedback demonstrated common myths within the following categories: 1) A lack of consistency in instructor and resources used (formal and informal), 2) perceived misconceptions on what is relevant (basic science versus clinical), 3) expectations for learning only what is perceived to be high yield. Approaches to preventing misperceptions for the future were identified for each category.ConclusionsPharmacology educators are curators of information. Evidence‐based clinical pharmacology information is changing faster than it can be updated in texts and the sanctioned board preparation resources that our students utilize. In the same manner, misinformation can rapidly spread via online forums and/or from handed down outdated resources from past students. Therefore, when pharmacology educators re‐engage medical students in‐person in the classroom, they will also have to more diligently serve as myth busters to combat misinformation and misperceptions.