English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:   There is an urgent need for medical school curricula that address the effects of structural influences, particularly racism, on health, healthcare access, and the quality of care for people of color. Underrepresented racial minorities in the United States receive worse health care relative to their White counterparts. Structural competency, a framework for recognizing and understanding social influences on health, provides a means for understanding the structural violence that results from and perpetuates racism in classroom and clinical education. Some medical schools have incorporated art into their curricula to increase empathy generally, yet few programs use art to address racial disparities in medicine specifically.Objective:   “Can We Talk About Race?” (CWTAR) aims to increase medical students’ empathy for racial minorities and increase the ease and ability of students to address racial issues. CWTAR also provides a unique context for ongoing conversations about racism and structural inequality within the health care system.Methods:   Sixty-four first-year medical students were randomly selected to participate in CWTAR. The on-campus Ackland Art Museum staff and trained student facilitators lead small group discussions on selected artworks. A course evaluation was sent to all participants consisting of 4 questions: (1) Likert scale rating the quality of the program, (2) the most important thing learned from the program, (3) any differences between discussion at this program versus other conversations around race, and (4) suggestions for changes to the program. Free text responses were content coded and analyzed to reveal common themes.Results:   Out of 64 students, 63 (98%) responded to at least one course evaluation question. The majority (89%) of participants rated the program quality as either “Very Good” or “Excellent.” Of the 37 students who responded to the free text question regarding the most important thing they learned from the program, 16 (44%) responses revealed students felt that they were exposed to perspectives that differed from their own, and 19% of respondents reported actively viewing a subject through another’s perspective. Of the 33 students who responded to the free text question regarding any differences between discussion at this program versus other conversations around race, 48% noted an increased comfort level discussing race during the program. A common theme in responses to the question regarding suggested changes to the program was a more explicit connection to medicine in the discussion around race.Conclusions:   Student responses to CWTAR suggest that the program is effective in engaging students in discussions of racial issues. More investigation is needed to determine whether this methodology increases empathy among medical students for racial minorities specifically.

Toward an Anti-Racist Curriculum: Incorporating Art into Medical Education to Improve Empathy and Structural Competency