Core Competencies of an Anti-racist Physician: Elective Course for Undergraduate Medical Students.

Introduction: Medical schools seeking to correct and reform curricula towards anti-racist perspectives need to address anti-Black forms of racism specifically and teach students critical upstander skills to interrupt manifestations of racism. We developed a course to teach preclinical medical students basic anti-racism competencies including recognition and awareness of anti-Black racism in medicine and upstander skills to advocate for patients and colleagues. Methods: In 2021 and 2022, we designed, implemented, and evaluated an elective course for second-year medical students (N = 149) to introduce competencies of anti-racism focusing on upstander skills for addressing anti-Blackness. We designed three patient cases and one student-centered case to illustrate manifestations of anti-Black racism in medicine and used these cases to stimulate small-group discussions and guide students toward recognizing and understanding ways of responding to racism. We designed pre- and postassessments to evaluate the effectiveness of the course and utilized anonymous feedback surveys. Results: Participants showed significant improvement in pre- to postassessment scores in both years of the course. The anonymous feedback survey showed that 97% of students rated the course at least somewhat effective, and the qualitative responses revealed five core themes: course timing, case complexity, learner differentiation, direct instruction, and access to resources. Discussion: This course reinforces upstander competencies necessary for advancing anti-racism in medicine. It addresses a gap in medical education by reckoning with the entrenched nature of anti-Black racism in the culture of medicine and seeks to empower undergraduate medical students to advocate for Black-identifying patients and colleagues.

Medical educators' perception of race in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: While several medical societies endorse race as a social construct, it is still often used as a biological trait in medical education. How medical educators employ race while teaching is likely impacted by their beliefs as to what race represents and its relevance in clinical care. Understanding these beliefs is necessary to guide medical education curriculum reform. METHODS: This was a qualitative survey study, conducted in June 2020, of Georgetown University Medical Center faculty. As part of the survey, faculty were asked to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, the extent to which they perceived race as a biological trait and its importance in clinical care. Self-identified clinical or preclinical faculty (N = 147) who believed that race had any importance were asked to provide an example illustrating its significance. Free-text responses were coded using content analysis with an inductive approach and contextualized by faculty's perspectives on the biological significance of race. RESULTS: There were 130 (88%) responses categorized into two major themes: race is important for [1] screening, diagnosing, and treating diseases and [2] contextualizing patients' experiences and health behaviors. Compared to faculty who perceived race as biological, those who viewed race as strictly social were more likely to report using race to understand or acknowledge patients' exposure to racism. However, even among these faculty, explanations that suggested biological differences between racial groups were prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: Medical educators use race primarily to understand diseases and frequently described biological differences between racial groups. Efforts to reframe race as sociopolitical may require education that examines race through a global lens, accounting for the genetic and cultural variability that occurs within racial groups; greater awareness of the association between structural racism and health inequities; movement away from identity-based risk stratification; and incorporation of tools that appraise race-based medical literature.

Race-Based Care and Beliefs Regarding the Etiology of Racial Differences in Health Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians' perspectives regarding the etiology of racial health differences may be associated with their use of race in clinical practice (race-based practice). This study evaluates whether attributing racial differences in health to genetics, culture, or social conditions is associated with race-based practice. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis, conducted in 2022, of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Education Research Alliance 2021 general membership survey. Only actively practicing U.S. physicians were included. The survey included demographic questions; the Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale (higher scores imply greater race-based practice); and 3 questions regarding beliefs that racial differences in genetics, culture (e.g., health beliefs), or social conditions (e.g., education) explained racial differences in health. Three multivariable linear regressions were used to evaluate the relationship between RACE scores and beliefs regarding the etiology of racial differences in health. RESULTS: Of the 4,314 survey recipients, 949 (22%) responded, of whom 689 were actively practicing U.S. physicians. In multivariable regressions controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and practice characteristics, a higher RACE score was associated with a greater belief that differences in genetics (ß=3.57; 95% CI=3.19, 3.95) and culture (ß=1.57; 95% CI=0.99, 2.16)-in but not social conditions-explained differences in health. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who believed that genetic or cultural differences between racial groups explained racial differences in health outcomes were more likely to use race in clinical care. Further research is needed to determine how race is differentially applied in clinical care on the basis of the belief in its genetic or cultural significance.

The Propagation of Race and Racial Differences as Biological in Preclinical Education.

Modern scientific research has demonstrated that race is a social construct rather than a biological construct. Yet, medical education research suggests that medical faculty still sometimes characterize race and racial differences as biological during lectures. To explore this dynamic, we reviewed (1) how race is presented in the preclinical curriculum of an undergraduate medical institution and (2) how preclinical faculty both define race and attribute disparate health outcomes to race. In part 1 of the study, the authors conducted a retrospective summative content analysis of all first-year preclinical lectures during the 2018-2019 academic year. In part 2, the authors administered a survey to preclinical faculty on the understanding of race, and responses were assessed through conventional content analysis. A number of faculty suggested a biological basis for racial differences during lectures, though survey results suggested that the majority characterize race as a social construct. Faculty knowledge of race and racial differences as a social construct was not reflected in the majority of the curricular analysis. Instead, the lectures showed that faculty predominantly discussed race without context (e.g., as a standalone epidemiological statistic or an unexplained factor of risk, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment), or with a biological context. We conclude that there is a discrepancy between preclinical faculty knowledge of race and the presentation of race and racial differences in lectures. This discrepancy has implications on medical education. We offer possible explanations for this discrepancy as well as resources for preclinical faculty development to bridge this gap.

The Body Mass Index of San Francisco Cold-water Swimmers: Comparisons to U.S. National and Local Populations, and Pool Swimmers.

To determine if cold-water swimmers have substantial differences in BMI, which might have a protective effect against heat loss during swims in cold water without wetsuits, and to determine if obesity is more or less prevalent in cold-water swimmers, we compared the body mass index (BMI) values of 103 recreational open-water swimmers (mean age 54.3 ±10.8 years) to data from various population groups. Swimmers swam consistently throughout the winter months, in the San Francisco Bay (water temperature range: 9.6° C [49.3 ° F] to 12.6° C [54.7 ° F]), without wetsuits. After matching for age and sex, the average BMI of cold-water swimmers (25.9 kg/m2) was lower than the corresponding predicted U.S. average BMI (29.2 kg/m2; p<.001), the predicted California state average BMI (28.0 kg/m2; p<.001), and the predicted San Francisco city average BMI (26.6 kg/m2; p=.047). The average BMI value for cold-water swimmers (25.9 kg/m2) was not significantly different from values of North American masters pool swimmers (25.1 kg/m2; p=.15) or international masters pool swimmers (25.3 kg/m2; p=.16). 10.7% of cold-water swimmers were classified as obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) vs. 35.7%, 25.8%, and 11.8% of the U.S., California, and San Francisco populations, respectively. The lower or similar BMI values of our swimmers suggest that successful recreational swimming in cold water is influenced by factors other than body habitus, such as acclimatization, heat production while swimming, and most importantly, limiting immersion time. The relatively low prevalence of obesity in our swimmers suggests that cold-water swimming could contribute to a healthy lifestyle.