Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2023/12, 123(12):A128-A129. doi: 10.1515/jom-2023-2000, type of study: ,css,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Full text    (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2023-2000/html)

Keywords:

cross sectional study [894]
language [32]
medical schools [196]
osteopathic medicine [2109]
Spanish [8]
USA [1752]

Abstract:

Statement of Significance: Spanish is the language in the US with the most significant language-concordant physician deficit (1). Language-concordant healthcare, when clinicians and patients communicate directly in the same language, improves patient outcomes and embodies osteopathic philosophy. Medical Spanish education aims to improve health equity for the growing Spanish-speaking population. However, the national prevalence of medical Spanish education at osteopathic medical schools has not been measured and evaluated. To describe the medical Spanish landscape at US osteopathic schools and evaluate program adherence to previously established basic standards: having a faculty educator, providing a curricular structure, assessing learner skills, and awarding institutional course credit (2). Research Methods: In 2022 (between March and October,) online surveys were sent to all 44 schools belonging to the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine. For nonrespondents, data was obtained from publicly available websites. Primary surveys were sent to medical school deans or diversity, equity, and inclusion officers at each school to determine the presence of medical Spanish curricula and to identify a medical Spanish liaison. If liaisons were identified, they received the secondary online survey. Data Analysis: We gathered information from 91% (40/44) of osteopathic medical schools. Fifty-seven percent (25/44) responded to the surveys, and four schools (9%) neither responded to surveys nor had available online information regarding medical Spanish. Overall, 89% (39/44) offered medical Spanish, of whom 67% (26/39) had formal curricula, 44% (17/39) had faculty educators, 18% (7/39) assessed learner skills, and 28% (11/39) provided course credit. Only 13% (5/39) of schools with medical Spanish programs met all basic standards. Urban/suburban schools were more likely to offer medical Spanish than rural schools (p=0.020). Osteopathic medical schools in states with the highest Spanish-speaking populations were more likely to offer student-run initiatives (p=0.027). Conclusion: Most osteopathic schools provide medical Spanish curricula. However, further efforts are warranted to improve their consistency, quality, and sustainability. Limitations to this study include possible respondent bias, an average (57%) response rate that may affect generalizability, potential for publicly available information to be outdated or inaccurate, and high degrees of individual course variation. Future research should focus on osteopathic student language proficiency assessment, improved medical Spanish accessibility for students at rural programs, and exploration of the unique content areas of osteopathic medical Spanish education.