Abstract Background For decades, there have been many publications of opinion and perspective articles advocating for including One Health in medical curricula. However, it is also known that there are numerous barriers for doing so including a lack of expertise and difficulty of transdisciplinary collaborations, both are essential for the development of One Health curricular content. This study comprehensively reviews peer-reviewed publications on One Health curricula in undergraduate medical education, with a focus on the development of curricular content, implementation strategies, and outcome assessments. Method A comprehensive PubMed search was conducted to identify articles that addressed the integration of One Health into undergraduate medical curricula. Eligible articles were screened and categorized based on their primary focus: (1) scope of One Health topic coverage, (2) incorporation of transdisciplinary collaboration, (3) teaching and learning strategies, and (4) outcome evaluation or assessment. Results A total of 3,445 publications in peer-reviewed journals over a span of 40 years (1983 to 2023) were screened, and only three met the inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. Most publications focused on conceptual advocacy or general descriptions of educational processes, with few offering concrete curricular materials or educational outcome evaluations. Conclusions This review highlights a critical gap in published literature: a scarcity of tangible, peer-reviewed examples of One Health curricular materials developed and evaluated for undergraduate medical education. To support the integration of One Health into physician training across institutions, we urge educators, One Health researchers and journal editors to prioritize the dissemination of practical course materials, implementation guides, and evidence-based outcome data. This is essential to prepare future physicians to address complex global health challenges through a One Health lens.
Russell et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: