ArticleBMC medical education2022
Mapping lifestyle medicine in undergraduate medical education: a lever for enhancing the curriculum.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Competencies for medical nutritional counselling of children and adolescents: Analysis of NKLM 2.0 based on an evidence-based catalogue of criteria.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Lifestyle Medicine Pillars and Pedagogies in Pre-registration Health Profession Degrees: A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2025Review
- The effectiveness of integrating making every contact count into an undergraduate medical curriculum.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2017, the Bipartisan Policy Center called for inclusion of lifestyle medicine (LM) in undergraduate medical education. Recognizing the requirement that lifestyle medicine should be an integral and integrated part of the curriculum, we undertook an in-depth mapping process to determine the extent of LM teaching at our Faculty, staff perceptions and the impact on medical students.
methodsThe study utilized mixed methodology. In Phase 1 (Mapping) structured analysis of course syllabi were conducted followed by observation of teaching sessions throughout the pre-clinical and clinical years, recording content, the degree of coverage, and time allocated to LM Medicine. In Phase 2 (Impact and perceptions), students' attitudes and confidence in LM counselling were ascertained by questionnaire (scale 1-4) on completion of second and fourth year of studies. Interviews were conducted with course coordinators.
resultsPhase 1: Students received 58 hours of LM teaching, 49 hours pre-clinical and 9 clinical; 42 hours were dedicated to theoretical knowledge and 16 hours to teaching practical skills related to lifestyle behavior change. Nutrition received the most attention (18 hours), alcohol, sleep, smoking and sexuality the least. On completion of the internal medicine rotation, students (n = 48) agreed that LM guidance should be part of the physician's role and that patients expected their physicians to be role models (mean ± sd; 3.4 ± 0.7). Students were fairly confident about providing general LM counselling (3.3 ± 1.1); but less so for exercise (3.0 ± 1.2), nutrition (2.7 ± 1.1), stress (2.5 ± 1.0), sleep (2.2 ± 1.2), and sexuality (2.1 ± 1.2). Staff recognized the importance of LM but reported time limitations and the need to bring in external experts to teach LM as challenges.
conclusionsReal-time mapping of teaching is a valuable way to ascertain teaching in practice. Based on our mapping process, redesign of curricula is needed to integrate more competency-based, experiential teaching, particularly in the clinical years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.