The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review of ethics curricula in undergraduate medical education
Abstract
Medical ethics education, it has been said, has ‘come of age’ in recent years in terms of its formal inclusion in undergraduate medical curricula. This review article examines the background to its inclusion in undergraduate curricula and goes on to examine the consensus that has arisen on the design of ethics curricula, using Harden’s curriculum and S.P.I.C.E.S models as templates. While there is consensus on content for undergraduate medical ethics education, there is still significant debate on learning and teaching methods. Despite the broad agreement on the need to apply adult education principles to ethics teaching, there would appear to be some tension between balancing the need for experiential learning and achieving the ‘core curriculum’. There are also as yet unresolved difficulties with regards to resources for delivery, academic expertise, curriculum integration and consolidation of learning. Assessment methods also remain contentious. Although there is consensus that the ultimate goal of medical ethics, and indeed of medical education as a whole, is to create ‘good doctors’, the influence of the ‘hidden curriculum’ on students’ development is only beginning to be recognized, and strategies to counteract its effects are in their infancy. The need for proper evaluation studies is recognized. It is suggested that the areas of debate appearing in the literature could be used as a starting point for evaluation studies, which would form the empirical basis of future curriculum development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model
HARDEN, R. M., SOWDEN, S., & DUNN, W. R. (1984) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1984.tb01024.x · Cited by 772
Cited by
Contemporary Issues in Bioethics.
(1978) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-89-4-581_1 · Cited by 434
Humanities in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Literature Review
Ousager, J., & Johannessen, H. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181dd226b · Cited by 261
Dzeng, E., Colaianni, A., Roland, M., Chander, G., Smith, T. J., Kelly, M. P., Barclay, S., & Levine, D. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0295 · Cited by 136
Rahimzadeh, V., Kostick-Quenet, K., Blumenthal Barby, J., & McGuire, A. L. (2023) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2023.2233358 · Cited by 66
Bridging the education–action gap: a near-peer case-based undergraduate ethics teaching programme
Kong, W. M., & Knight, S. (2017) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103762 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldie, J.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 108-119
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2160732661
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Review of ethics curricula in undergraduate medical education. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00607.x
- The paper
- Goldie, J. (2000). Review of ethics curricula in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00607.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.