Disability education in Korean medical school curricula: current status and challenges

Persons with disabilities experience persistent health disparities, and limited provider knowledge, negative attitudes, and poor communication have been identified as consistent contributors. Despite the growing international debate regarding the necessity of disability education in medical schools, no national study has examined how it is implemented in Korea. This study examines the current status of disability education in Korean medical school curricula and compares the findings with those from selected international contexts.

This descriptive cross-sectional survey analyzed publicly available curriculum data from all 40 medical schools and graduate medical schools registered with the Korea Association of Medical Colleges as of May 2026. Each institution was assigned to one of four codes: Code A (standalone required disability course), Code B (standalone elective), Code C (disability-related keywords indirectly inferable from medical humanities course titles or descriptions), or Code D (medical humanities courses with no disability-related content identified). A cross-national comparison with the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan was conducted across five criteria: relevant legislation, accreditation standards, competency frameworks, mandatory status, and survey research.

No institution offered a standalone disability course (Code A: 0; Code B: 0). Of the 40 institutions, 35 (87.5%) offered medical humanities courses with no disability-related content identified (Code D), and five (12.5%) included disability-related keywords indirectly inferable from course titles or descriptions, although these could not be verified at the syllabus level (Code C). The cross-national comparison found that all five countries have disability-related legislation; however, none has directly linked such legislation to medical school curricula. Only the United States has a dedicated competency framework, which is not formally linked to accreditation standards. National survey research was identified only in Australia and partially in the United Kingdom and the United States.

No standalone course on disability understanding was documented in the publicly available curricula of any Korean medical school, despite relevant legislation and widespread medical humanities provision. This gap is not unique to Korea. As a policy direction, the development of a Korea-specific disability competency framework, its incorporation into accreditation standards, and ongoing monitoring could support the realization of the Disability Act's educational purpose in medical education.