The Hidden Curriculum of Veterinary Education: Mediators and Moderators of Its Effects

The “hidden curriculum” has long been supposed to have an effect on students' learning during their clinical education, and in particular in shaping their ideas of what it means to be a professional. Despite this, there has been little evidence linking specific changes in professional attitudes to the individual components of the hidden curriculum. This study aimed to recognize those components that led to a change in students' professional attitudes at a UK veterinary school, as well as to identify the attitudes most affected. Observations were made of 11 student groups across five clinical rotations, followed by semi-structured interviews with 23 students at the end of their rotation experience. Data were combined and analyzed thematically, taking both an inductive and deductive approach. Views about the importance of technical competence and communication skills were promoted as a result of students' interaction with the hidden curriculum, and tensions were revealed in relation to their attitudes toward compassion and empathy, autonomy and responsibility, and lifestyle ethic. The assessment processes of rotations and the clinical service organization served to communicate the messages of the hidden curriculum, bringing about changes in student professional attitudes, while student-selected role models and the student rotation groups moderated the effects of these influences

The hidden curriculum and integrating cure- and care-based approaches to medicine

Although current literature about the “cure versus care” issue tends to promote a patient-centered approach, the disease-centered approach remains the prevailing model in practice. The perceived dichotomy between the two approaches has created a barrier that could make it difficult for medical students and physicians to integrate psychosocial aspects of patient care into the prevailing disease-based model. This article examines the influence of the formal and hidden curricula on the perception of these two approaches and finds that the hidden curriculum perpetuates the notion that “cure” and “care” based approaches are dichotomous despite significant changes in formal curricula that promote a more integrated approach. The authors argue that it is detrimental for clinicians to view the two approaches as oppositional rather than complementary and attempt to give recommendations on how the influence of the hidden curriculum can be reduced to get a both-cure-and-care-approach, rather than an either-cure-or-care-approach