Background Integrative medicine has become a new healthcare model due to the growing evidence base for complementary and integrative therapies. However, some question whether complementary and integrative therapies can truly be integrated with biomedicine due to differences in underlying paradigms and theoretical bases. This study aimed to explore differences in scientific worldviews between students studying East Asian medicine and those completing an allopathic medical degree using the validated Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI). Methods 122 medical students from Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Einstein) and 48 East Asian medicine students from the Pacific College of Health and Science (Pacific College) participated in this study. Participants completed the TSSI, a 60-item Likert-scale instrument that quantitatively measures the sociocultural resistance to, and support for science. Item and category means were compared between each group using an independent sample t-test. Results Distinct differences were seen between the two groups of students with regard to age, gender distribution and prior education. Einstein students were generally supportive of science and Pacific College students were generally supportive of/positively neutral to science. Einstein students more strongly affirmed the relationship of science in relation to the categories of Epistemology, Public Health, Emotion and Aesthetics, the Economy, and Public Policy. Pacific College students more strongly affirmed the relationship between science and the category Race and Gender. There were no differences in the categories of Environment and Resource, Science for All, and Religion and Morality. Conclusion This study suggests that there are differences underlying the scientific worldviews of Einstein and Pacific College students, particularly with regard to Epistemology and Public Health. Such differences may be related to the different theoretical knowledge bases and ways of viewing health within the two disciplines. Despite demographic and educational differences between the two groups their overall scientific worldviews were similar with neither group expressing disparate views. This suggests that both groups may be receptive to the value of other paradigms. Providing courses that focus on different therapeutic approaches and paradigms during medical training may foster interprofessional understanding and collaborative practice between health professionals of different medical disciplines.

Background Integrative medicine has become a new healthcare model due to the growing evidence base for complementary and integrative therapies. However, some question whether complementary and integrative therapies can truly be integrated with biomedicine due to differences in underlying paradigms and theoretical bases. This study aimed to explore differences in scientific worldviews between students studying East Asian medicine and those completing an allopathic medical degree using the validated Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI). Methods 122 medical students from Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Einstein) and 48 East Asian medicine students from the Pacific College of Health and Science (Pacific College) participated in this study. Participants completed the TSSI, a 60-item Likert-scale instrument that quantitatively measures the sociocultural resistance to, and support for science. Item and category means were compared for each group using the two-sample t-test. Results Einstein students were generally supportive of science and Pacific College students were generally supportive of/positively neutral to science. Einstein students more strongly affirmed the relationship of science in relation to the categories of Epistemology, Public Health, Emotion and Aesthetics, the Economy, and Public Policy. Pacific College students more strongly affirmed the relationship between science and the category Race and Gender. There were no differences in the categories of Environment and Resource, Science for All, and Religion and Morality. Conclusion This study suggests that there are differences underlying the scientific worldviews of Einstein and Pacific College students, particularly with regard to Epistemology and Public Health. Such differences may be related to the different theoretical knowledge bases and ways of viewing health within the two disciplines. Our study also suggests that both groups may be receptive to the value of other paradigms. Providing courses that focus on different therapeutic approaches and paradigms during medical training may foster interprofessional understanding and collaboration between providers of different medical disciplines.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP is a Food and Drug Administration approved human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention tool that reduces the risk of infection by greater than 90%. While it does not provide protection against other sexually transmittable infections and blood-borne illnesses such as hepatitis C, syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, it is a highly effective in reducing the risk of transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men. Despite the success of PrEP, there remain barriers to PrEP uptake rooted in stigmatized perspectives shared by health professionals, patients, and community members. The insidious impact of stigma associated with HIV/AIDS has permeated throughout the LGBTQ+ community, healthcare system, society in general and to this day, continues to exacerbate structural and social determinants of health disparities amongst sexual and gender minorities. While the initial resistance to PrEP has abated over time, stigmatized perspectives regarding PrEP continue to impede those at greatest risk from benefiting from effective preventive care.

In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Mélanie Terrasse, Moti Gorin, and Dominic Sisti respond to recent efforts to address the "digital attention crisis," arguing that "[b]ioethicists should make their voices heard in the debate on the responsibilities of social media companies toward their consumers and society at large." I strongly agree. I have frequently been asked by my colleagues why I spend time on social media professionally, on top of all the competing demands associated with my work as a bioethicist and medical educator. There is sometimes a dismissive tone in these questions, a sense that attention to social media is beneath a bioethicist's proper intellectual pursuits. Such perspectives overlook the extraordinary opportunities of social media and the important role for bioethics, as a field, in examining them.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. The editor for this theme issue on Accessing Medical Education has asked authors to reflect on how they came to be the medical education professional they are today. My own pathway was non-traditional to say the least. Some professions are sought out and others come about through serendipitous moments and opportunities. My own journey has contributed to my current scholarly focus on professionalism in health care.

Background Social media use by physicians offers potential benefits but may also be associated with professionalism problems. The objectives of this study were: 1) to examine and compare characteristics of social media use by medical students and faculty; 2) to explore the scope of self- and peer-posting of unprofessional online content; and 3) to determine what actions were taken when unprofessional content was viewed. Methods An anonymous, web-based survey was sent to medical students and faculty in October, 2013 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York. Results Three-quarters of medical students reported using social media “very frequently” (several times a day), whereas less than one-third of faculty did so ( p < .001). Medical students reported using privacy settings more often than faculty (96.5 % v. 78.1 %, p < .001). Most medical students (94.2 %) and faculty (94.1 %) reported “never” or “occasionally” monitoring their online presence ( p = 0.94). Medical students reported self -posting of profanity, depiction of intoxication, and sexually suggestive material more often than faculty ( p < .001). Medical students and faculty both reported peer -posting of unprofessional content significantly more often than self- posting. There was no association between year of medical school and posting of unprofessional content. Conclusion Medical students reported spending more time using social media and posting unprofessional content more often than did faculty.

Identifying sources of and eliminating social stigma associated with the promotion and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of sexually acquired HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) is both a moral imperative and necessary requirement to ensure that public health objectives of HIV prevention can be met. This article will examine and address ethical concerns and criticisms regarding the use of PrEP, barriers to its promotion, and use among MSM and examine the types of social stigma associated with PrEP. An ethical justification for both healthcare and LGBT communities to address and overcome social stigma regarding the use of PrEP among MSM is offered.

Technological advances have been a driving force in the practice of medicine. From the discovery of x-rays' medical applications to the utilization of dialysis and surgical transplantation of organs, technology has presented new opportunities, and at times, ethical challenges for physicians. In recent years, the increased proliferation of social media tools has had a significant impact on how people engage with one another, and how they want to engage with their healthcare providers. Medical schools have begun to examine some of the issues surrounding use of social media in the context of professionalism in their curricula. Many of the physicians already in practice are left to grapple with how to learn about and wield social media in not only a professional capacity and their personal lives, but often where the two intersect. This paper will explore both opportunities for social media engagement and ethical concerns such usage presents to physicians and in particular to those in the field of musculoskeletal medicine.

The growing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), of which estimated 38% of adults in the United States used in 2007, has engendered changes in medical school curricula to increase students' awareness of it. Exchange programs between conventional medical schools and CAM institutions are recognized as an effective method of interprofessional education. The exchange program between Albert Einstein College of Medicine (Einstein, Yeshiva University) and Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, New York campus (PCOM-NY) is in its fifth year and is part of a broader relationship between the schools encompassing research, clinical training, interinstitutional faculty and board appointments, and several educational activities. The Einstein/PCOM-NY student education exchange program is part of the Einstein Introduction to Clinical Medicine Program and involves students from Einstein learning about Chinese medicine through a lecture, the experience of having acupuncture, and a four-hour preceptorship at the PCOM outpatient clinic. The students from PCOM learn about allopathic medicine training through an orientation lecture, a two-and-a-half-hour dissection laboratory session along side Einstein student hosts, and a tour of the clinical skills center at the Einstein campus. In the 2011/2012 offering of the exchange program, the participating Einstein and PCOM students were surveyed to assess the educational outcomes. The data indicate that the exchange program was highly valued by all students and provided a unique learning experience. Survey responses from the Einstein students indicated the need for greater emphasis on referral information, which has been highlighted in the literature as an important medical curriculum integrative medicine competency.

The authors apply eight ethical domains of analysis to the question of treatment of chronic pain with opioids in patients with histories of substance use disorders: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, justice, medical condition, patient preference, quality of life, and consideration of specific individual or sociocultural issues. These eight domains are drawn from principle-based and case-based ethical perspectives. The domains are developed by review of available literature and through application to a specific presented case. Factors that interfere with rational, ethical decision-making regarding opioid pain management are identified. Chronic pain and substance use disorders share a history of stigmatization, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment. Using the presented case as a point of departure, the authors discuss principles for prescription of opioids for treatment of chronic noncancer pain in the setting of history of substance use disorders.