Teaching and Learning in Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Comparisons of Validity of the New and Prior MCAT Exams in Predicting Performances on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examinations.","authors":"Aaron Douglas, Alisa Alfonsi LoSasso, Bernard L Lopez, Charles Pohl, Anita Wilson, Mohammadreza Hojat","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495353","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495353","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined the validity of the new MCAT exam (administered since 2015) for predicting medical students' performance on United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) and compared the findings with those of the prior MCAT version. Participants comprised two samples of students who entered Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University between 2012 and 2020. One sample included 1,111 students (559 men, 552 women) with new MCAT scores who matriculated between 2016 and 2020, and the other comprised 1,312 students (668 men, 644 women) with prior MCAT scores who matriculated between 2012 and 2015. We used students' MCAT scores as predictors of performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE. Bivariate correlations and path analysis were used for statistical analyses. Path analysis showed new MCAT total scores resulted in <i>R²</i> values of 0.14, 0.11, and 0.16 for predicting performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE, respectively. The new MCAT total scores demonstrated levels of validity comparable to the prior MCAT for predicting students' performances on the criterion measures. Additional path analyses showed an impact of gender on the predictive validities for some section scores of the new (but not prior) MCAT exam. Replication of this study is recommended in other medical schools to examine generalizability of our findings regarding predictive validities of section scores of the new MCAT exam, particularly regarding gender and section.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"255-263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144065049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Aesthetic Labour in Health Professional Education: Dress, Discrimination and Resistance.","authors":"Edward Waters","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2484391","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2484391","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Phenomenon: </strong>In organizational studies and management literature, the term aesthetic labor is used to describe how employee appearance is managed to provide particular customer experiences. Health professional education programs also manage the appearance of students, particularly by formulating dress codes. Previous literature has shown that dress codes can reflect racist, sexist and class biases and reinforce hierarchies of privilege within and between health professions.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>This critical perspective reappraises this literature to develop an account of aesthetic labor in health professional education.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The aesthetic labor process is shown to support structural discrimination, but also to invoke a variety of student responses that incorporate professional resistance.</p><p><strong>Insights: </strong>This article relates these to the aesthetic labor literature using labor process theory, and identifies areas for future research as well as implications for educational institutions and practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"164-171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143732970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gaslighting the Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Medical Student: How US Medical School Assessment Practices Perpetuate Systemic Inequities.","authors":"Michael S Ryan, Jennifer Randall","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2477094","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2477094","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Physicians from racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) populations are woefully under-represented in the medical profession. The consequences of under-representation are far reaching, with profound impacts on social justice efforts and public health. One solution to remedy this crisis involves the aggressive recruitment of students from REM backgrounds. Though medical education programs have advanced in the recruitment of REM students, their outcomes during medical school are worse than for students from non-REM populations. Previously, literature has focused on causes for this disparity including social determinants, biases, and burden. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> In this manuscript, we invoke Critical Whiteness Theory (CWT) to argue how the systems of assessment in medical schools are an under-appreciated contributor to disparities, effectively perpetuating inequities by promoting a white supremacist culture. We begin by examining the origins of assessment in medical education, exploring the historical desire to measure attributes of a <i>good doctor</i>, but the tendency to default toward measures of aptitude and rote medical content knowledge that support a white supremacist culture. The Flexner Report and a systemic shift to favor standardized testing are highlighted as major contributors to the foundation of medical school assessment programs. We then describe potential for progress, through a better definition of the <i>good doctor,</i> articulated by the competency-based medical education movement, and advanced further through a justice-oriented assessment program. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> Using an illustrative case example and review of the literature, we suggest that progress in admissions and remediation are commonly coupled, and misaligned, with a historical approach to assessment. Resulting from the misalignment, we argue that medical education programs effectively \"gaslight\" REM students by admitting them into programs poorly equipped to support their success and convincing REM students that their poor outcomes were earned. We share examples from pre-clinical and clinical assessment programs, including a continued reliance on standardized tests, arbitrary grading thresholds, shadow assessment programs, and focus on episodic remediation that results in stigmatization for failures. <b><i>Insights:</i></b> We conclude by providing a model for how issues identified through this perspective may be remedied through a justice-oriented approach to assessment. Through that approach, we propose improved alignment in the recruitment and retention of REM students, thereby resulting in better outcomes for patients, improved physician representation, and realization of a diverse and more complete picture of the <i>good doctor</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"148-163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143607125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From Inquiry to Insight: Unlocking the Potential of Students' Questions in Medical Education in Singapore.","authors":"Amanda Huee-Ping Wong, Lik-Wei Wong, Shing Chuan Hooi, Shuh Shing Lee","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2481400","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2481400","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Background:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Question-asking serves as a fundamental tool for active learning, allowing students to articulate uncertainties, link concepts, and refine their understanding. Despite its recognized value, the potential of student-generated questions in medical education remains underexplored, particularly in Asian academic settings where sociocultural norms may discourage students from speaking up in classroom discussions. Research on students' questions has overlooked their application as a resource for understanding cognitive engagement and identifying problem areas in student learning. This study, conducted at the National University of Singapore, addresses this gap by exploring student-generated questions as a lens into cognitive engagement with course content. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Methods:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; A content analysis approach was used to classify questions submitted anonymously by first-year medical students via a shared question-and-answer document embedded in the self-directed learning segment of a cardiovascular physiology course. Questions were categorized by cognitive levels using the revised Bloom's taxonomy, which provides a structured framework for assessing cognitive complexity. A chapter-based analysis examined question distribution across content areas to identify patterns in topic-specific inquiry. Two independent raters performed the classification, reaching an inter-rater agreement of 83.2%. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Results:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Two-hundred ninety-eight (298) questions were analyzed, with most categorized at the 'Understand' (56%) and 'Apply' (29%) levels. This distribution closely aligns with the educational objectives of the self-directed learning segment and foundational medical curriculum, which prioritize comprehension and practical application. Slight variations across cognitive levels, particularly in higher-order categories, suggest that the nature of certain topics or instructional activities may promote deeper engagement. Question frequency was not uniformly distributed across topics, with electrocardiogram and clinical examination topics eliciting the most questions, likely due to the foundational relevance and integration with subsequent teaching activities. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Discussion:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Incorporating opportunities for question-asking within the curriculum is a promising strategy for examining students' cognitive engagement in medical education. The prevalence of 'Understand' and 'Apply' questions highlights a strong engagement pattern aligned with early-stage medical education, while chapter-based trends suggest topic complexity or instructional activities may influence question-asking patterns. By systematically analyzing student-generated questions, this study provides a structured means of assessing how students engage with course content at different cognitive levels. These insights can be used to inform instructional strategies that better support student engagement, allowing educators to refine teaching approaches according to","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"186-195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143755809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Historical Roots of Tiered Grading in US Medical Education.","authors":"James F Smith, Nicole M Piemonte","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495352","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluation of medical students remains one of the most complex and challenging issues in academic medicine. Evaluation occurs in an educational environment that must cultivate a diverse, collaborative, and resilient physician workforce imbued with skills, drive, and stamina for a lifelong commitment to patient care, self-care, and professional development. Additionally, evaluation must not only be valid and reliable but also relevant to the public who medical students will eventually serve. In U.S. medical education, evaluation, and the assessments on which evaluation is based, has evolved over several centuries. Understanding the history of how, when, and why U.S. medical students have been assessed and subsequently evaluated can inform contemporary dialogue on curricular reform. In exploring this history, several important considerations emerge. First, tiered grading arose through the historical assimilation of U.S. medical schools into universities rather than as a mechanism for assessing clinical competence or acumen. Second, even before influences of university academia suffused medical education, imprudent academic emphasis on the memorization of facts over deeper understanding of, and reflection on, medical sciences and practice was already entrenched. Evaluation systems like tiered grading served to validate-if not accelerate-overreliance on the memorization and recall of scientific facts. As a result, other professional attributes important for medical practice, including intrinsic motivation, group cohesiveness, and diversity of the physician workforce were, and remain, adversely affected. Finally, despite early observations that tiered grading is associated with medical student stress and anxiety, there has been insufficient attention to and mitigation of these effects on medical student wellbeing over the last century. Our collective response to controversies surrounding tiered grading should account for the historical rationality of the adoption of this form of evaluation and its enduring effects on contemporary medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"236-247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144031671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Examining Differences in the Preparation and Performance of US MCAT Examinees from Lower-SES Backgrounds: Awareness, Access, and Action Insights to Narrow Learning Opportunity and Performance Gaps and Promote Learning for All Aspiring Physicians.","authors":"Aubrie Swan Sein, Stephanie C McClure, Julie A Chanatry, Daniel M Clinchot, Edwin D Taylor, H Liesel Copeland, Francie Cuffney, Rhona Beaton, Kadian L McIntosh, Cynthia A Searcy","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2492620","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2492620","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon:</i></b> On the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), required for entry into all medical schools in the U.S. and many in Canada, average scores are typically lower for individuals from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds compared to their more advantaged peers, although individuals from every background score in the lower, middle, and upper ranges of the score scale. This achievement gap is potentially due in part to disparities in resource utilization and effective study strategies. Viewing this challenge through a socioecological systems lens can help identify potential systems-level opportunities to support students from these backgrounds to succeed in medicine. <b><i>Approach:</i></b> This investigation was the first large-scale review of MCAT preparation strategies, resource utilization, and challenges for examinees from lower-SES backgrounds, focusing on those who obtained higher versus lower MCAT scores. It aimed to examine differences in students' use of evidence-supported learning/studying strategies and challenges experienced in preparing for the MCAT exam. Survey data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Post-MCAT Questionnaire on MCAT preparation strategies and resources used and challenges experienced by 2021-2023 examinees were analyzed, focusing on the 3,240 survey respondents from lower-SES backgrounds. T-tests and chi-square analyses compared continuous variables and proportions between lower- and higher-scoring examinees from lower-SES backgrounds, using Cohen's h to estimate effect size. <b><i>Findings:</i></b> Higher-scoring examinees reported greater use of many evidence-supported effective test preparation and learning strategies, including discussing preparation strategies with advisors/peers, establishing baseline capabilities, practicing applying knowledge to practice questions, and evaluating readiness by taking a practice test. Utilization rates of high-value, free/low-cost MCAT resources were significantly higher among top scorers. Conversely, lower-scoring examinees were more likely to report challenges in obtaining reliable internet access, determining how to begin studying, and accessing concrete information about the MCAT exam. <b><i>Insights:</i></b> This study highlights critical differences in preparation approaches and challenges among examinees from lower-SES backgrounds. Identifying these gaps may provide insights regarding interventions to improve access to resources and potential improvement to MCAT performance. We provide systems-level ideas for how to better support students from lower-SES backgrounds. For example, learning specialists and advisors could use the findings from this study to screen and educate examinees about evidence-based MCAT preparation strategies and resources. This study identifies opportunities to inform interventions to help students from lower-SES backgrounds advance toward a career in medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"172-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143994440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparability of Preceptor Assessment of Medical Students in a General Practice and Multispecialty Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship in a US Medical School.","authors":"Hana Smith, Henry Colangelo, Kari Mader, Roberto Silva, Jennifer E Adams, Tai Lockspieser","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495351","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495351","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Continuity is the organizing principle of the Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship (LIC) and drives its outcomes. In a multispecialty LIC, students are paired with specialty-specific preceptors in each of the core clerkships approximately one half-day per week and work with each of these preceptors longitudinally throughout their clinical training. The general practice (GP) LIC differs in that students are primarily paired with full-scope generalist preceptors who teach the content of several specialties in one setting. It is unknown if assessments from a single preceptor teaching multiple specialties will include sufficient data for summative grading. The aim of this study was to demonstrate non-inferior assessment narrative quality and comparable clerkship clinical grades for students in an urban GPLIC compared to multispecialty LIC students at a United States (U.S.) medical school.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In 2022, 16 GPLIC preceptors assessed 6 students in pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine, using forms that allowed assessment in multiple specialties concomitantly. Assessment forms included both comments and ratings of student performance of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and other skills. Sixteen GPLIC assessment forms were matched to 16 multispecialty forms, deidentified, and evaluated for quality. Adequacy of assessment data was determined by the school's curricular and assessment deans who observed all clerkship grading committee meetings. Feedback on the assessment process was solicited from all 1164 LIC preceptors through an electronic survey at the end of the year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall comment quality did not significantly differ between the groups. There was no significant difference in word count or presence of EPA-specific comments between GPLIC and multispecialty LIC assessment forms. We found no difference in the presence of adequate assessment data between the two groups as judged by final grading committees. The clinical grade distributions of Honors, High Pass, and Pass were not significantly different, and no differences in preceptor feedback about the assessment forms were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that in the inaugural year of an all-LIC curriculum at a US medical school, GPLICs, where preceptors concurrently assess students across multiple specialties, produce noninferior assessment data when compared to multispecialty LIC preceptors. These results suggest the feasibility for parallel GP and multispecialty LICs. This offers medical schools flexibility in expanding clinical training sites beyond traditional specialty-focused academic contexts, while maintaining comparability in assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"196-205"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143994218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"US Internal Medicine Residents' Inpatient Learning Experience Variation Revealed Through Electronic Health Record Data.","authors":"Sean Tackett, Bahareh Modanloo, Heather Sateia, Jiajun Wu, Laura Prichett, Todd Dorman, Alex Duran, Pamela Lipsett","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2487598","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2487598","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Phenomenon</i></b>: Residents are assumed to be prepared for practice after completing required rotations, but there is little understanding of what clinical conditions they manage. Electronic health records (EHRs) capture resident clinical activities, but few studies have effectively used EHR data to characterize resident experiences. <b><i>Approach</i></b>: We extracted EHR data for all patients admitted July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 cared for by an internal medicine resident in the Johns Hopkins Hospital residency program. We examined individual residents' encounters with specific clinical conditions, identified using the principal International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10 CM) discharge code and categorized according to the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Certification Exam Blueprint. We compared numbers and percentages of clinical conditions encountered across individuals and postgraduate years (PGYs). <b><i>Findings</i></b>: We included 19,129 admissions for 14,657 patients cared for by 135 residents. ABIM categories most commonly seen were cardiovascular (CV) (mean 20.4%, SD 4.7%), infectious diseases (ID) (mean 19.5%, SD 2.2%), and gastroenterology (GI) (mean 11.2%, SD 3.2%). The largest differences between clinical conditions encountered and ABIM Blueprint were excesses of 10.5% for ID and 6.4% for CV and deficits of 6.1% for rheumatology and orthopedics and 5.5% for endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Total number of admissions per resident ranged 522-963 for PGY-1, 457-1268 for PGY-2, and 224-811 for PGY-3. Percentages of clinical conditions seen varied for individuals in the same postgraduate year: e.g., for CV, ranges were 16-23% for PGY-1, 15-40% for PGY-2, and 10-25% for PGY-3. <b><i>Insights</i></b>: Individual residents in the same program had varied inpatient experiences, suggesting a need to understand implications for variation. Linking residents to clinical conditions encountered using EHR data may generate insights that can be incorporated into precision medical education systems to improve learning and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"206-214"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143796375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who and What is Publishing For? A Critically Conscious Reading of Career Guidance for Health Professions Educators.","authors":"Carmen Black, William Eidtson, Violet Kulo, Nicole A Perez, Francesca A Williamson, Anna T Cianciolo","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2026.2616584","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2026.2616584","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"141-147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146031431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Integration of Oral Health and Oral Surgery into Medical Training.","authors":"Kelly Mayol-Graciano, Gerald Chang, Maria Padilla, Jorge Cervantes","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2487593","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2487593","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the United States (U.S.) population continues to age, we need to promote a renewed perspective on oral health, helping policy makers understand the impact of poor oral health on older adults with chronic conditions. In this article we describe the issue of lack of oral health education in medical school curricula, the differences in dental school programs, and a brief history of Oral maxillofacial surgery DMD/MD programs in the U.S. In addition to an education focusing on technical skills, dental education should also address scientific, social, and health-related competencies. Not only should the lack of integration of oral health topics in medical curricula be addressed, we should also train future dental professionals on the systemic effects of oral conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"248-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143812541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}