DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c7eabc
,
,
PMID: 20107333
Issn Print: 1040-2446
Publication Date: 2010/02/01
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
 |
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid | |
Excerpt
The authors' stated purpose was to “evaluate the quality of the evidence cited in the evidence-based CAM curricula of the 15 organizations that received NCCAM grants”; those curricula were summarized in nine articles in the October 2007 issue of Academic Medicine. We served on the editorial group that compiled those articles and were keenly interested in Marcus and McCullough's findings. However, a valid evaluation begins with a valid description of program content. Unfortunately, it appears that the authors obtained their information solely from the Web sites of various programs. This is hardly a rigorous approach to determine the material being taught in courses and clerkships. A valid evaluation requires rigor and objectivity, which the authors failed to exercise. For example, no data were presented regarding formal evaluations of any courses. To our knowledge, Marcus and McCullough did not contact the course or program directors directly to ascertain the content of the curricula, much less the evidence. Despite their failure to satisfy even minimal standards for program evaluation, Marcus and McCullough went on to declare boldly that “integrative medicine programs have failed to uphold educational standards.”
Furthermore, they overlooked many important measures that schools follow to ensure objectivity in programming and student learning outcomes. For example, in the orientation to the master's degree program in the physiology–CAM track at Georgetown University School of Medicine, students are told unequivocally that faculty do not seek to teach belief or advocacy but, rather, to emphasize objectivity and encourage students to practice open-minded skepticism. In a recent comprehensive review by the graduate school of the university (which has the oversight responsibility urged by the authors), this program at Georgetown received accolades. And at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, all content is reviewed by an advisory committee of medical school faculty and practitioners. Aspects of integrative medicine deemed relevant are incorporated into courses through a collaborative process with course directors.
By making sweeping conclusions based on faulty methods and incomplete evidence, the authors do a disservice to the readers and needlessly impugn the reputation of stellar academic institutions. We are astonished that a prestigious journal such as Academic Medicine published this work as original research; it is basically little more than an unsubstantiated and biased viewpoint.
