The authors describe the process by which a curriculum was developed to introduce complementary and alternative medicine topics at multiple levels from health professional students to faculty, as part of a five-year project, funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, from 2001 to 2005. The curriculum was based on four educational goals that embrace effective communication with patients, application of sound evidence, creation of patient-centered therapeutic relationships, and development of positive perspectives on wellness. The authors analyze the complex and challenging process of gaining acceptance for the curriculum and implementing it in the context of existing courses and programs. The developmental background and context of this curricular innovation at this institution is described, with reference to parallel activities at other academic health centers participating in the Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine. The authors hold that successful curricular change in medical schools must follow sound educational development principles. A well-planned process of integration is particularly important when introducing a pioneering curriculum into an academic health center. The process at this institution followed six key principles for successful accomplishment of curriculum change: leadership, cooperative climate, participation by organization members, politics, human resource development, and evaluation. The authors provide details about six analogous elements used to design and sustain the curriculum: collaboration, communication, demonstration, evaluation, evolution, and dissemination.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180334908DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

academic health
12
curricular change
8
health centers
8
curriculum
6
health
5
creating sustainable
4
sustainable curricular
4
change lessons
4
lessons learned
4
learned alternative
4

Similar Publications

What is wrong with the peer review system? Is peer review sustainable? Useful? What other models exist? These are central yet contentious questions in today's academic discourse. This perspective critically discusses alternative models and revisions to the peer review system. The authors highlight possible changes to the peer review system, with the goal of fostering further dialog among the main stakeholders, including producers and consumers of scientific research.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly incorporated into scientific workflows. However, we have yet to fully grasp the implications of this integration. How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science? For this opinion piece, we have invited four diverse groups of scientists to reflect on this query, sharing their perspectives and engaging in debate.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The Internet is a crucial source of health information, providing access to vast volumes of high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant healthcare information. Its impact extends beyond information access, influencing medical practice through the widespread adoption of telemedicine and evidence-based medicine. Despite the significant global increase in internet usage, Africa lags in internet penetration, particularly in utilizing the internet for health information.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. It does so through a codebook thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists from the Global North. We find that journalists' perceptions of these academic controversies vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of lower respiratory tract infection, hospitalisation and death in adults.

Methods: Based on evidence regarding the impact of RSV on adult populations at risk for severe infection and the efficacy and safety of RSV vaccines, the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology, the Portuguese Association of General and Family Medicine, the Portuguese Society of Cardiology, the Portuguese Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, the Portuguese Society of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, and the Portuguese Society of Internal Medicine endorses this position paper with recommendations to prevent RSV-associated disease and its complications in adults through vaccination.

Conclusion: The RSV vaccine is recommended for people aged ≥50 years with risk factors (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, immunocompromise, frailty, dementia, and residence in a nursing home) and all persons aged ≥60 years.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!