Expectations for physicians are rapidly changing, as is the environment in which they will practice. In response, preclerkship medical education curricula are adapting to meet these demands, often by reducing the time for foundational sciences. This descriptive study compares preclerkship pharmacology education curricular practices from seven allopathic medical schools across the United States. We compare factors and practices that affect how pharmacology is integrated into the undergraduate medical education curriculum, including teaching techniques, resources, time allocated to pharmacology teaching, and assessment strategies. We use data from seven medical schools in the United States, along with results from a literature survey, to inform the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches and to raise important questions that can guide future research regarding integration of foundational sciences in medical school and health professions’ curricula. In this comparative study, we found that there is significant heterogeneity in the number of hours dedicated to pharmacology in the preclerkship curriculum, whereas there was concordance in the use of active learning pedagogies for content delivery. Applying the ICAP (Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive) Framework for cognitive engagement, our data showed that pharmacology was presented using more highly engaging pedagogies during sessions that are integrated with other foundational sciences. These findings can serve as a model that can be applied beyond pharmacology to other foundational sciences such as genetics, pathology, microbiology, biochemistry, etc.

Health disparities exist among groups that are based on race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography. Often, interventions directed at addressing these disparities are episodically incorporated into health professions education as opposed to a more uniform integration throughout a curriculum. Thus, a working framework for integrating and assessing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) specifically into foundational science teaching in health professions’ education is needed. Current frameworks are theoretically based and often bereft of practical examples that basic science and clinical educators would find useful in educational settings. Here we analyzed examples in pharmacology, therapeutics, and clinical medicine to create a tool aimed at identifying and remediating biases and disparities across the undergraduate medical education (UME) curriculum. We initially focused on pharmacology examples and performed a literature search followed by an in-depth analysis of the literature together with our experiences teaching topics with a DEI component. It became clear that, in addition to pure pharmacology topics, there are many pharmacology- and therapeutics-related topics that also involve race, gender, and sexual orientation. These include clinical guidelines and clinical screening criteria. Further analysis of all of the examples derived from our multi-faceted analysis revealed common themes that we, in turn, compiled into a framework. This framework can be used by foundational science and clinical educators to help both students and faculty understand how to navigate DEI-associated foundational science content.