木村 康彦

Abstract Background Hidden curriculum (HC) can limit the effects of professionalism education. However, the research on how HC triggers unprofessional behavior among medical students is scant. Furthermore, there is no established approach for how faculty members may create a context, such as an educational environment and education system, that prevents students’ unprofessional behavior. This study aimed to develop an educational approach to prevent unprofessional behavior and clarify how faculty members consider HC that triggers students’ unprofessional behavior. Methods The study sample comprised 44 faculty members and eight medical students from the Chiba University School of Medicine. The participants were divided into groups and asked the following question: “What attitudes, statements, and behaviors of senior students, physicians, and faculty members trigger medical students’ unprofessional behavior?” The responses were collected using the affinity diagram method. The group members discussed the causes and countermeasures for the selected attitudes, statements, and behaviors of senior students, physicians, and faculty members based on the affinity diagram. The impact of the group work on the faculty members was surveyed using questionnaires immediately after its completion and six months later. Furthermore, the cards in the group work were analyzed using content analysis. Results The responses to the questionnaire on group work indicated that some faculty members (43.8%) improved HC, while others suggested conducting group work with more participants. The content analysis revealed six categories – inappropriate attitude/behavior, behavior encouraging unprofessional behavior, lack of compliance with regulations, harassment of other medical staff, inappropriate educational environment/supervisor, and inappropriate self-control – and 46 subcategories. Conclusions The HC that triggers students’ unprofessional behavior includes the words and actions of the educator, organizational culture, and educational environment. Group work makes faculty members aware of the HC that triggers unprofessional behavior, and induces behavioral change for HC improvement in the educational activities. Educators should refrain from using words and actions that encourage unprofessional behavior, such as personal anecdotes, as they reduce students’ learning motivation.

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.