Effects of the Hidden Curriculum in Medical Education: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical education now focuses on developing skilled and dependable professionals, with particular attention to the hidden curriculum and its influence on professionalism and humanism. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to analyze the available evidence on the benefits and adverse effects of the hidden curriculum in medical education. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature available in the indexed databases PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) with MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) descriptors was conducted on the effects of the hidden curriculum in medical education between January 2000 and April 2024. A total of 29 papers were selected for the review. RESULTS: Our review included studies from 10 countries, most of which were descriptive and cross-sectional, revealing both positive and negative impacts of the hidden curriculum in medical education. These include the transmission of implicit values and the influence on forming skills and professional identity. It was found that some elements contributed to the integral development of students, and others generated challenges that affected the quality of medical education. Likewise, the need for further research to design implementation strategies in different medical schools was described. CONCLUSIONS: The hidden curriculum proves to have both a positive and negative impact on the attitudes and values of medical students. The findings highlight the need to generate greater awareness and proactive strategies in educational institutions to improve the quality of training and promote the holistic development of future health professionals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".