山内 かづ代

BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI), represented by large language models, have the potential to transform health care and medical education. In particular, GAI's impact on higher education has the potential to change students' learning experience as well as faculty's teaching. However, concerns have been raised about ethical consideration and decreased reliability of the existing examinations. Furthermore, in medical education, curriculum reform is required to adapt to the revolutionary changes brought about by the integration of GAI into medical practice and research. OBJECTIVE: This study analyzes the impact of GAI on medical education curricula and explores strategies for adaptation. METHODS: The study was conducted in the context of faculty development at a medical school in Japan. A workshop involving faculty and students was organized, and participants were divided into groups to address two research questions: (1) How does GAI affect undergraduate medical education curricula? and (2) How should medical school curricula be reformed to address the impact of GAI? The strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT) framework was used, and cross-SWOT matrix analysis was used to devise strategies. Further, 4 researchers conducted content analysis on the data generated during the workshop discussions. RESULTS: The data were collected from 8 groups comprising 55 participants. Further, 5 themes about the impact of GAI on medical education curricula emerged: improvement of teaching and learning, improved access to information, inhibition of existing learning processes, problems in GAI, and changes in physicians' professionality. Positive impacts included enhanced teaching and learning efficiency and improved access to information, whereas negative impacts included concerns about reduced independent thinking and the adaptability of existing assessment methods. Further, GAI was perceived to change the nature of physicians' expertise. Three themes emerged from the cross-SWOT analysis for curriculum reform: (1) learning about GAI, (2) learning with GAI, and (3) learning aside from GAI. Participants recommended incorporating GAI literacy, ethical considerations, and compliance into the curriculum. Learning with GAI involved improving learning efficiency, supporting information gathering and dissemination, and facilitating patient involvement. Learning aside from GAI emphasized maintaining GAI-free learning processes, fostering higher cognitive domains of learning, and introducing more communication exercises. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the profound impact of GAI on medical education curricula and provides insights into curriculum reform strategies. Participants recognized the need for GAI literacy, ethical education, and adaptive learning. Further, GAI was recognized as a tool that can enhance efficiency and involve patients in education. The study also suggests that medical education should focus on competencies that GAI hardly replaces, such as clinical experience and communication. Notably, involving both faculty and students in curriculum reform discussions fosters a sense of ownership and ensures broader perspectives are encompassed.

BACKGROUND: The gamification of learning increases student enjoyment, and motivation and engagement in learning tasks. This study investigated the effects of gamification using decision-making cards (DMCs) on diagnostic decision-making and cost using case scenarios. METHOD: Thirty medical students in clinical clerkship participated and were randomly assigned to 14 small groups of 2-3 medical students each. Decision-making was gamified using DMCs with a clinical information heading and medical cost on the front, and clinical information details on the back. First, each team was provided with brief clinical information on case scenarios. Subsequently, DMCs depending on the case were distributed to each team, and team members chose cards one at a time until they reached a diagnosis of the case. The total medical cost was then scored based on the number and contents of cards drawn. Four case scenarios were conducted. The quantitative outcomes including confidence in effective clinical decision-making, motivation to learn diagnostic decision-making, and awareness of medical costs were measured before and after our gamification by self-evaluation using a 7-point Likert scale. The qualitative component consisted of a content analysis on the benefits of learning clinical reasoning using DMCs. RESULT: Confidence in effective clinical decision-making, motivation to learn diagnostic decision-making, and awareness of medical cost were significantly higher after the gamification. Furthermore, comparing the clinical case scenario tackled last with the one tackled first, the average medical cost of all cards drawn by students decreased significantly from 11,921 to 8,895 Japanese yen. In the content analysis, seven advantage categories of DMCs corresponding to clinical reasoning components were extracted (information gathering, hypothesis generation, problem representation, differential diagnosis, leading or working diagnosis, diagnostic justification, and management and treatment). CONCLUSION: Teaching medical students clinical reasoning using DMCs can improve clinical decision-making confidence and learning motivation, and reduces medical cost in clinical case scenarios. In addition, it can help students to acquire practical knowledge, deepens their understanding of clinical reasoning, and identifies several important clinical reasoning skills including diagnostic decision-making and awareness of medical costs. Gamification using DMCs can be an effective teaching method for improving medical students' diagnostic decision-making and reducing costs.