How do we keep all parts of the medical curriculum in balance—particularly public health—in an increasingly crowded educational landscape?
Drivers such as the recent introduction of the new national final year medical school exam (known as the UKMLA) and Health Education England’s Future Doctor Programme have brought Public Health into increased focus across medical school curricula. As the demands of the health care systems evolve, so does the curriculum that prepare future doctors. At a recent PHEMS (Public Health Education for Medical Schools Special Interest Group) online workshop, educators from across the UK gathered to explore the important questions raised by these changes. Around 70 delegates from various medical schools attended, with presentations from several schools describing their approaches, alongside sharing research findings from a study which explored this in depth. Some common themes were identified based on discussions on the day:
How do we keep all the parts of the big picture of the curriculum in balance? How do we ensure any one element doesn’t get too much time?
One strong recommendation was to adopt curriculum mapping as a practical tool to quantify content, identify imbalances, and ensure public health is not lost among competing priorities. Good mapping enables educators to visualise where public health is taught, understand its scope, and identify duplication or gaps.
Regular curriculum review was acknowledged as essential, but difficult to achieve in practice. Attendees described innovative approaches such as termly review meetings based on student feedback and teacher experience.
Crucially, there was recognition that introducing new content must be accompanied by difficult decisions to remove or update existing material—avoiding the temptation to simply “bolt on” more. In addition, the most successful schools engage students and educators in regular reviews and shaping the content.
How do we do ‘applied’ public health in large medical schools (including making authentic assessments)?
Constructive alignment with assessments was suggested as a possible solution as assessment shapes what students prioritise. This means ensuring that the assessment matches the taught content, and that both are aligned to the intended final outcomes: in this case doctors who can take a population perspective regardless of their clinical speciality. There was discussion around how implementation sciences can be included along with evidence-based practice and leadership modules (acknowledging that not all schools consider leadership to be directly part of public health). Aligning public health teaching with constructive, authentic assessments was seen as a way to both reinforce key messages and demonstrate the discipline’s real-world relevance.
Should Public Health be treated as a standalone speciality or embedded within other teaching?
Rather than taking a definitive position, participants advocated for both approaches. Public health should be integrated across the curriculum to ensure clinical relevance, but also given dedicated space and oversight to maintain identity and quality. Concerns were raised when public health was taught by non-specialists, reinforcing the need for stronger coordination and leadership. It was noted that in some schools there is no specific public health teaching lead, and it was felt that PHEMS members could take an active role in supporting schools where this was the case.
Delegates highlighted the importance of explicitly labelling teaching as public health, helping students make connections between core curriculum topics—such as vaccination, behaviour change, and health inequalities—and public health principles. Embedding public health from the first year onwards, with content every year and opportunities for community-based learning and elective research, was widely supported. Medical schools may benefit from having Public Health fellows or champions to promote relevant teaching.
What public health material is being taught in non-public health-led modules, and what opportunities are there to integrate public health teaching into traditionally clinical or even basic science modules?
Educators shared examples of public health content taught under the banner of other specialties—such as paediatrics, epidemiology, and behavioural science. While encouraging, many noted a lack of coordination, which risks diluting the impact of public health principles. A more strategic and labelled approach to integration across modules could help raise visibility and coherence.
Are students from certain schools more likely to apply to speciality public health training programmes?
Participants expressed interest in better understanding which medical schools and pathways lead to greater engagement with public health careers. There was a perception that increasing numbers of medical students expressed an interest in public health in recent years. It was noted that if there was an appetite to explore this topic, this was a question that could be answered using the national UKMED database.
Conclusion
This event highlighted ways that public health education can be integrated into the medical curriculum to the benefit of students and the public. Strong leadership emerged as a recurring theme. Effective integration of public health requires visible champions—senior educators with the authority, insight, and time to lead curriculum reform. Equally important is stakeholder engagement, including service-based public health professionals and educators from across disciplines. A combination of bottom-up ideas and strategic direction was seen as the most effective way to drive meaningful change. As public health professionals and educators, we must continue to champion our discipline’s place at the heart of medical education.
Published 12 June 2025
Education & Training