Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T08:58:14.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Oxford Perinatal Care Model and Medical Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Roger J. Bulger
Roger J. Bulger
Affiliation:
Association of Academic Health Centers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medical education in the United States is torn between its allegiance to the Newtonian biomolecular paradigm of medical science that made it so successful in the past and a growing sense, both within academia and without, that medicine needs to become more interdisciplinary and population based. This article explores the potential of the Oxford Perinatal Care model as a useful tool for medical educators to bridge the curricular gap between these two paradigms. The Oxford model is based upon ongoing meta-analysis of all randomized control trials relating to perinatal medicine; interventions and technologies are placed into one of four categories, ranging from “forms of care that reduce negative outcomes” to “forms of care that should be abandoned.” This article proposes a strategy for the inclusion of this information into the U.S. medical school curriculum.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Summer 1993 , pp. 409 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.American Medical Association. Impact of product liability on the development of new medical technologies. In Proceedings of the House of Delegates, 137th annual meeting. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1988, 87.Google Scholar
2.Boorstin, D. J. The republic of technology and the limits of prophecy. In Boorstin, D. J., Hidden history. New York: Random House, 1992, 305–13.Google Scholar
3.Bulter, R. J.Academic medicine's stake in judge-made science. Courts, Health Science and the Law, 1991, 3, 406–10.Google Scholar
4.Bulger, R. J.Reductionist biology and population medicine-strange bedfellows or a marriage made in heaven? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264, 508–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Canter, J. C., Cohen, A. B., Barker, D. C., et al. Medical educators' views on medical education reform. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 1002–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Engel, G. L. How much longer must medicine's science be bound by a seventeenth century world view? In White, K. (ed.), The task for medicine. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1988, 113–36.Google Scholar
7.Enkin, M., Kierse, M. J. N. C., & Chalmers, I.A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
8.Nemerov, H. To the Congress of the United States on entering its third century, with preface. On the Opening of the One Hundred and First Congress of the United States of America. Congressional Record, 03 2, 1989.Google Scholar