The Merits and Challenges of Three-Year Medical School Curricula: Time for an Evidence-Based Discussion. Acad Med 2015 Oct;90(10):1318-23
Date
08/13/2015Pubmed ID
26266464Pubmed Central ID
PMC4585483DOI
10.1097/ACM.0000000000000862Scopus ID
2-s2.0-84957577972 (requires institutional sign-in at Scopus site) 41 CitationsAbstract
The debate about three-year medical school curricula has resurfaced recently, driven by rising education debt burden and a predicted physician shortage. In this Perspective, the authors call for an evidence-based discussion of the merits and challenges of three-year curricula. They examine published evidence that suggests that three-year curricula are viable, including studies on three-year curricula in (1) U.S. medical schools in the 1970s and 1980s, (2) two Canadian medical schools with more than four decades of experience with such curricula, and (3) accelerated family medicine and internal medicine programs. They also briefly describe the new three-year programs that are being implemented at eight U.S. medical schools, including their own. Finally, they offer suggestions regarding how to enhance the discussion between the proponents of and those with concerns about three-year curricula.
Author List
Raymond JR Sr, Kerschner JE, Hueston WJ, Maurana CAAuthors
Cheryl A. Maurana PhD SVP Str Acad Ptnrshp, Dir, Prof in the Institute for Health and Equity department at Medical College of WisconsinJohn R. Raymond MD President, CEO, Professor in the President department at Medical College of Wisconsin
MESH terms used to index this publication - Major topics in bold
CanadaCurriculum
Education, Medical, Undergraduate
Evidence-Based Practice
Family Practice
History, 20th Century
History, 21st Century
Humans
Internal Medicine
Physicians
Schools, Medical
Time Factors
Training Support
United States
