ArticleCureus2026
Racism in Medicine 101: A Simple and Engaging Approach to Challenging Topics in Resident Medical Education.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction One strategy for combatting the effects of racism in healthcare is to provide education on racism's manifestations. However, implementing effective training is challenging because of its complexity and resource requirements. Our objective in this study was to determine whether a new racism in medicine workshop, intentionally designed through the use of adult learning theories to be easy to deliver, community-centered, and thoughtful, could improve participant confidence in understanding racism in medicine in a manner applicable across multiple specialties. Methods We conducted a single-site survey study that ran from June 2023 to December 2023 at an academic medical center and included participants across six departments. There were 83 participants, 88% (73) of whom completed both pre- and post-session surveys. We developed and implemented a novel racism in medicine workshop that utilized existing educational materials and facilitators with limited teaching expertise. The primary outcome was participants' self-reported confidence in several learning domains. A secondary outcome was participants' satisfaction with the workshop. Results There was a significant improvement in participants' confidence across all learning domains, with notable improvement in participants' ability to identify examples of racial inequity mitigation (39.7% vs. 90.5%, p < 0.05) and understanding of race-conscious medicine (39.7% vs. 90.5%, p < 0.05). Most participants strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the workshop (65.8%) and that it was relevant to their training (75.3%). Conclusions These results suggest that the Racism in Medicine 101 workshop is effective, well received, and may be particularly useful in teaching real-world examples through community-centered discussion and the use of adult learning theories. We believe this success also suggests that our model, which utilized preexisting educational materials and facilitators with limited experience, is a viable solution to the challenges of educating medical trainees and faculty about racism in medicine, specifically avoiding the challenges of relying on highly experienced facilitators and one-size-fits-all solutions. This model could be studied further by including more participants, incorporating more institutions, and potentially linking this training to changes in behavior or clinical outcomes. Finally, we believe that this model could be applied to other challenging subjects, including topics such as transgender health, ableism, and the foster care system.
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.