Osteopathic versus allopathic medical school pathology curricula: a survey of medical students at Michigan State University

Despite guidelines for pathology undergraduate medical education set forth by the Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation, there is sparse literature regarding differences in pathology curricula between allopathic and osteopathic institutions. As programs alter curricula to adapt to the ever-increasing breadth and depth of medical knowledge, there is concern for lost educational opportunities in pathology and a growing need for research on the landscape of pathology undergraduate medical education in medical schools nationwide. An Institutional Review Board approved, voluntary 22-item survey regarding pathology curricula was distributed to allopathic and osteopathic medical school students at Michigan State University from July 2022 to January 2023. The total number of responses was 363 (n = 363; 22.6% allopathic, 77.4% osteopathic). We present data on pathology education at a university that features both an allopathic and osteopathic college of medicine while focusing on factors that influence medical students’ perceptions of pathology. Statistically significant differences (P≤0.05) in responses—favoring Michigan State University osteopathic students over their allopathic counterparts—were observed in several areas: the perception of pathology as a medical versus surgical specialty (P 0.014), acknowledgement of a dedicated pathology course (P 0.002), and awareness of pathology-specific content (P < 0.001). Allopathic students expressed a greater desire for pathology exposure (P 0.003). This study highlights the variable exposure of pathology between two different curriculums and suggests that, while traditionally primary-care-focused, osteopathic medical programs may offer stronger pathology education and exposure.