LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP OF AN ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL CURRICULUM

Background. The Alternative Curriculum (AC), an elective program at the University of Virginia School of Medicine that enrolled a total of 48 students in 1973 and 1974, was one of many demonstration and pilot programs conducted during the 1970s. Its principal features were (1) a three-year time span; (2) early, prolonged, and intensive instruction in clinical skills; (3) intensive consideration of behavioral, social, economic, ethical, and legal aspects of medicine in a patient-centered curriculum; (4) an extensive course in sexuality; (5) an independent study format for two preclinical courses; (6) instruction in cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and (7) participation in the activities of the local rescue squad. In view of continuing questions about the structure and content of medical school curricula, it seemed worthwhile to try to determine what effects the program might have had on the participants during medical school and in their subsequent careers. Methods. In 1991, data on the AC participants were collected, largely by means of a survey but also by examination of the participants' medical school records and determination of their current professional status. Results. Of the 48 participants, 44 were available for the survey, and 37 returned completed questionnaires. The great majority of the respondents had positive opinions about the program's three-year time span, morale during the program, and beneficial effects of the program's special content during their clerkships, postgraduate training programs, and subsequent careers. They thought they had had enough time to make informed specialty choices and did not think that their participation in the AC had been a handicap in getting the internships they wanted. Fewer than half of the students thought that the AC had influenced their career choices, and only 26% were currently in primary care specialties. Conclusion. The AC was successful in improving students' morale during the preclinical segment, preparing them for clerkships, and increasing their sensitivity to the patient as a whole. That the program was not effective in inducing students to enter primary care specialties supports the view that curriculum content is not a major factor in students' choices of specialty.