Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42728971›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2026

Meducide - Towards a new conceptual framework for the destruction of medical education in armed conflicts.

Suhad Daher-Nashif

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Suhad Daher-NashifKeele University School of Medicine, Keele, England, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8767-4619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wars and armed conflicts are widely recognised as a threat to health systems, yet the destruction of medical education is still too often treated as a secondary educational disruption. This opinion article argues that attacks on medical schools, teaching hospitals, clinical placements, accreditation systems and faculty pipelines should be understood as a distinct form of long-term public health harm. I propose the term "meducide" to describe the systematic destruction, dismantling or incapacitation of medical education during war, whether by direct attack or by structural conditions that render medical training impossible. The concept builds on existing scholarship on attacks on education, structural violence and health workforce fragility, while highlighting what is distinctive about medical education. It captures not only the destruction of medical schools and teaching hospitals but also the broader erosion of the conditions necessary to train future healthcare. Therefore, it sits at the intersection of higher education, health service delivery, professional regulation and the future health workforce. Naming Meducide does not replace careful empirical documentation or legal assessment of intent. Rather, it offers a precise conceptual language for recognising a recurring pattern: when medical education is destroyed, the effects extend beyond students and universities to patient care, population health, post-conflict recovery and health system sovereignty. The article calls for medical education to be documented separately in conflict monitoring, protected as critical civilian and health infrastructure, included in humanitarian and reconstruction planning, and supported through global recognition, cross borders faculty networks, conflict-adapted curricula and sustainable clinical training pathways.

Indexed as

AccreditationHealth workforceHumanitarian healthMedical educationPublic healthTeaching hospitalsWar and armed conflict

Identifiers

PMID42728971
PMCPMC13560647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.