Medical writing in a university curriculum
University medical-writing teaching develops communication skills through genre-based assignments, critical analysis, feedback and practice for different audiences. Curricula can serve future clinicians, scientists and professional writers and can be developed with industry partners.
The case for university teaching
University and college programmes preparing physicians, nurses, technicians and other clinical practitioners have seldom included advanced communication coursework or preparation for writing to professional audiences. Unfamiliar life-science writing tasks can expose basic writing and critical-thinking errors even in otherwise accomplished writers. A university writing instructor’s 14 years of reading and editing graduate-student and professional papers, grant applications and other material revealed frequent room for improvement in grammar, mechanics, clarity and audience-appropriate language. In Taiwan, academic writing was absent from most university undergraduate curricula in a 2017 account, leaving many medical professionals to learn English academic writing after starting their careers.
Undergraduate institutions offering medicine, life-science or nursing programmes should offer medical-writing courses: scientists and clinicians need to communicate findings and persuade people across disciplines of their significance to obtain funding, publish and advance science. In 2023, few universities offered medical-writing courses, and biomedical-science graduates typically learned the necessary communication skills on the job. An accredited course with discussion, collaboration and peer review could develop the following skills.
- Critical analysis of data in scientific reports and publications.
- Appropriate synthesis of substantial information from diverse sources.
- Clear, accurate, grammatically correct and well-structured writing.
- Understanding different target audiences’ needs.
- Awareness of legal and ethical issues such as transparency and plagiarism.
Early curricular examples included an 18-hour, semester-long medical-communication course at an osteopathic medical college, meeting weekly and dividing its time between writing and speaking. At Ferris State University, an English professor teaching advanced writing to nurses and pharmacists used expertise developed through AMWA to propose a medical-writing track within a four-year professional and technical communication degree.
An undergraduate online pilot
Miami University in Ohio offered two online sections in 2016–17: an eight-week course beginning in October 2016 with 16 nursing, zoology, biology and pre-medical students, followed by a January–May 2017 semester with 20 students. The five modules were organised as follows.
- Introduction: medical-writing genres and sample readings.
- Medical records and reports: patient records, clinical trial reports, morbidity and mortality reports, and medical error reports.
- Effective design: research-paper formatting, educational content for colleagues and patient education materials.
- Scientific reports and proposals: funding applications, progress reports and collaborative scientific writing.
- Applications for employment, graduate school and medical school.
Clinical narratives and scientific-report critiques emphasised rhetorical analysis and audience awareness. A final white paper evaluating a student-selected topic was assigned at the start to allow research, preparation, writing and revision.
Students ranged from traditional full-time students to working healthcare professionals with over 20 years’ experience. Discussion boards helped inexperienced students learn charting from experienced classmates, including what should be recorded, by whom and why. Discussions also covered ethical situations, healthcare advertising, poorly written prose and grant applications’ specific aims. The longer second course allowed additional discussion and assignment development, particularly helpful to nursing and pre-medical students learning documentation. Interactive online writing courses can allow informal written discussion alongside formal assignments, with undergraduate outcomes as good as or better than other formats.
Optional evaluation response rates were 53% and 72%, compared with a typical 8–35%. All respondents in the first course and all but one in the second agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements.
- Assignments and activities advanced analytical or creative abilities.
- The course was intellectually challenging.
- Reading or writing ability improved.
- Appreciation of the topic increased.
Students found the textbooks outdated: Penrose and Katz’s Writing in the Sciences and Heifferon’s 2005 Writing in the Health Professions, whose basic concepts remained sound but whose presentation was obsolete. A second-year nursing student found clinical narratives frustrating because she lacked clinical experience, prompting reconsideration of that assignment. Patient education brochures were the most enjoyed assignments, combining text and visuals for lay readers with international and multicultural sensitivity.
Planned revisions included two replacement textbooks: Arntfield and Johnston’s Healthcare Writing: A Practical Guide to Professional Success for clinicians and scientists, and Polack and Avtgis’s Medical Communication: Defining the Discipline for clinicians and clinical-trial professionals. Students suggested peer review of final papers, and the instructor planned career-specific assignments, such as charting for nurses and research documents for aspiring scientists, clinician-scientists and medical writers.
Medical English across a medical degree
In Belgrade’s 2013 English for Medical Academic Purposes curriculum, instruction integrated reading, listening, speaking and writing, treating writing as particularly demanding and valuable academically and professionally. English was compulsory in the first two years and elective in years three to five.
The first two years included 60 hours, using a textbook for upper-intermediate and advanced English learners with authentic medical texts, discussion, glossaries, vocabulary and grammar exercises across biomedical subjects. Reading was the main activity, listening was taught mainly through interaction, and physician–patient and physician–physician role play supported information exchange. Writing tasks were teacher-controlled: gap-filling, note-taking and paragraph construction or reconstruction, followed by reformulating medical genres. In classes of 70–100, students drafted and edited in groups of two or more and completed homework on which teachers commented in detail. Exercises included summarising survey results and answering real advertisements for physician jobs or overseas hospital internships, with websites and medical television programmes supplying context and vocabulary. Progress depended partly on general English knowledge, ability to acquire other language skills, motivation and effort.
Smaller elective classes offered 30 hours per level and more scope for creativity and feedback, treating writing as a process. Third-year work included abstracts, essays, a case report and a patient project critiqued by teachers and peers; fourth-year work emphasised histories, graphs, charts and research papers alongside posters and patient projects; fifth-year work included patient histories across disciplines and a poster presentation. Students also read current British and American journals, formed opinions on medical developments, researched online, prepared individual and group presentations and learned teaching language because many would become teachers.
At each level, clear genre instructions came first, pre-writing and brainstorming took place in class, and pairs and teams combined knowledge successfully. Students found the syllabus useful and practical because it was adapted to their academic and professional needs.
Graduate objectives and teaching resources
A University of Cincinnati graduate science- and medical-writing course served students from varied backgrounds, many aiming for writing or editing careers and mostly entering workplace rather than academic positions. Its aims combined critical analysis with writing practice, using rhetorical principles to develop strategic communication and persuasive, well-designed documents. Objectives included the following.
- Explain scientific- and medical-writing conventions.
- Produce different forms for specific purposes and audiences.
- Evaluate online and print writing differences.
- Analyse popular discourse about science and health.
- Define ethical issues and their effects on science and health writing.
- Research medical and scientific subjects effectively.
- Acquire basic medical and scientific vocabulary.
Resources were divided between critical analysis of rhetorical implications and production applying that analysis; the collection was a bank of alternatives rather than a reading list assigned in full each term. The production resources in 2014 included AMA’s 2007 tenth-edition style manual, APA’s 2009 sixth-edition Publication Manual, CSE’s 2014 eighth-edition manual and ICMJE recommendations updated in December 2013.
Resources addressed different teaching needs.
| Teaching need | Resource and use |
|---|---|
| Career orientation | AMWA Toolkit for New Medical Writers: careers, opportunities and entry routes |
| Gathering information | Gastel’s Health Writer’s Handbook (2004): its first section covers information resources and interviewing professionals and patients |
| Workplace context and writing practice | Blum, Knudson and Henig’s A Field Guide for Science Writers (2006) |
| Reading statistics | Hayden and Nijhuis’s science-writing collection (2013), particularly its essential-statistics chapter |
| Medical vocabulary | Kryder’s Nude Mice and Other Medical Writing Terms You Need to Know (2009), for students lacking scientific or medical backgrounds |
| Reader-focused prose | Greene’s Writing Science in Plain English (2013): 12 principles including audience analysis, storytelling and active and passive voice |
| Audience, ethics and project management | Selected chapters of Heifferon’s Writing in the Health Professions (2005) |
| Science, ethics and public audiences | Three selected chapters of Penrose and Katz’s Writing in the Sciences (2010) |
| Genre concepts | Miller and Fahnestock’s Genres in Scientific and Technical Rhetoric (2013) |
| Design before formal design coursework | Williams’s The Non-Designer’s Design Book (2008), supporting website and brochure assignments |
| Assignment images | USA.gov public-domain and US-government image resources usable without permission or fee |
| Writing for screens | Writing Spaces Web Writing Style Guide, crowdsourced in 2011 |
| Approachable statistics for humanities graduates | Free Khan Academy statistics videos |
Medical-writing curricula should include persuasion, collaboration, strategic and project management, drug development, and locating and interpreting FDA regulations, reflecting the more central organisational role that access to online regulations can give writers.
University–industry module development
Manchester Metropolitan University developed a medical-writing option within an MSc in Science Communication and offered it separately as a standalone module. Biomedical-science expertise and established science–humanities and public-engagement work provided a distinctive angle, while former PhD students’ careers introduced academics to medical communications. Approval required evidence of demand, expertise and staff time, preferably with stakeholder support letters; student-intern market research identified medical writing as a distinctive selling point. The MSc comprised four 30-credit modules and a 60-credit live project over 12 months full-time or 24 part-time, with a choice of science journalism, medical writing or SciArt.
Industry contacts grew through former students, colleagues, EMWA, ISMPP and Network Pharma, including an EMWA presentation in 2016. Although some companies questioned master’s-level training because recruitment tended to favour PhDs, 19 representatives of 18 companies joined four academics in developing the module. Partners reviewed draft objectives, learning outcomes, assessment and content before an away day of breakout discussions and iterative design. Refinement continued over several months until participants were satisfied with master’s-level rigour, assessment and industry coverage; companies owned or shared sessions and staff could become associate lecturers.
The module ran for 12 weeks at five hours weekly: three hours of lectures and workshops and two of interactive seminars, with an academic attending every session for continuity. Its learning outcomes were as follows.
- Assess clinical research outputs’ scientific importance with reference to pharmaceutical-product effectiveness.
- Distinguish audiences’ and delivery platforms’ needs when writing medical communications.
- Compose evaluative medical writing to a brief.
The curriculum covered clinical-data interpretation and critical analysis, the profession and industry, the legal framework, different audiences, and accurate scientific writing to briefs across journals, conferences, print, digital, video and audio formats.
The teaching sequence combined lectures and seminars.
| Session | Topic | Staff | Indicative content |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enrol | MedComms Conference (open attendance) | ||
| L1 | The World of Medical Writing | A/I | Brief overview of medical communications from industrial partners, outlining some of the different routes through the profession, commercial considerations, and giving an overview of desirable employee attributes. Consideration will be given to how to manage a project from initiation to final sign-off. |
| S1 | Preparation for Assignments | A | Assignment requirements and recommendations will be outlined. Introductions via a personal statement, and as a beginning to CV/portfolio development. This written work will also be collected in and edited if appropriate. Editing exercise. |
| L2 | Clinical Development Process I | I | An overview of the clinical development process – including pre-clinical stages – as underpinning information to support understanding of the profession. Pharmacokinetics refresher. |
| S2 | Digital Comms | A | Digital communications. Online publishing. LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. Portfolio/reflective diaries. |
| L3 | Clinical Development Process II | I | Outline of overall process, with illustrative examples. Marketing access (pricing, reimbursement), as well as marketing approval, and phase 4 post-marketing, pharmacovigilance, and real-world observational studies. |
| S3 | Clinical Development Activity | I | Activities illustrating clinical development process. |
| L4 | Writing Good English | A | The value of writing well, and the principles of basic English and grammar (University Language Centre). Consideration as to how all interactions with others contribute to an impression of professionalism (emails, webex, telephone). |
| S4 | Writing for Different Audiences | A | The different ways in which English might be used to communicate information around medical research (social media, press, narrative) to a range of different audiences. |
| L5 | Core Medical Writing Skills I | I | The conventions of scientific writing, and how to read, abstract, and present scientific/ technical information in writing. The session will include reference management, abstracting information, writing abstracts, working to time constraints. Introduction to typical expectations of a project brief and subsequent outputs, and the role in setting standards of relevant professional groups such as ISMPP, EMWA. Guidelines for manuscript preparation, and reporting of different types of clinical data as provided by the EQUATOR network. Good publication practice guidelines (GPP) and reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT). |
| S5 | The Craft of Copywriting | I | In this externally led session, tips, techniques and exercises develop writing skills and compelling copy. |
| L6 | Core Medical Writing Skills II: Information retrieval and management | A | The range of information resources available, including core medical writing resources – journals, papers, website, databases, textbooks (with University Library) |
| S6 | Assignment one workshop | A | |
| L7 | Statistics and Presentation of Data I | A | A refresher on the basic statistical analyses used in clinical research, to help understanding and interpretation of results. |
| S7 | Statistics and Presentation of Data II | A | How best to present information derived from clinical data, including digital channels, PowerPoint, Prezi, Keynote, tables, infographics, etc. |
| L8 | Clinical Studies: Interpretation and presentation of clinical data | A | Bringing previous topics together with examples and exercises. |
| S8 | Assignment workshop | ||
| Assignment one deadline | |||
| L9 | Professional Standards: Constraints and Compliance | I | The context within which the profession operates, including the need to focus on good publication practice, adverse event reporting, copyright infringement, plagiarism, data protection, etc. as well as business ethics, professionalism, and responsibility. Regulatory bodies/guidelines such as EFPIA, ABPI, ICMJE, GPP3, Sunshine Act, EQUATOR Network. |
| S9 | Case Studies | I | Different case studies which raise issues around constraints and compliance (e.g., authorship, disclosure, copyright, plagiarism, ethics, code of conduct) will be provided for consideration and discussion. |
| L10 | Communicating with different audiences | I | A different look at how audiences perceive and understand modes of communication. |
| S10 | Assignment two workshop | A | |
| Placement week | |||
| L11 | Understanding new therapy areas | A/I | Introduction to relevant hot topics by healthcare science researchers at the University, and consideration as to how information around these topics can be converted into appropriate resources, for different audiences such as specialists, healthcare providers, internal pharma, patients, etc. A request for proposals (RFP) will be provided for students to present during Thursday’s session, with a Q&A session to help clarify the RFP. |
| S11 | Responding to a brief: Student presentations | A/I | Students make a pitch, with up to five slides (or no slides) in a “Dragons Den” format on the basis of Tuesday’s RFP |
| L12 | One-to-one tutorials | A | |
| Professionalism | I | Writing test, CV surgery, careers overview, Q&A |
A denotes academic staff, I industry staff, and A/I joint delivery; an academic attended every session, and the introductory conference was organised by Network Pharma and hosted by the University of Manchester.
The first assignment, worth 30%, critically analysed a publication with clinical data on a pharmaceutical product, covering the therapeutic area, existing drugs and the product’s efficacy evidence. The second, worth 70%, required a portfolio based on a clinical paper, critically analysing the publication, reconstructing its data for different audiences, explaining writing-style choices and meeting the UK legal and ethical framework. Tutorials, workshops and formative exercises supported assessment.
Delivery, outcomes and sustainability
Placement preparation required researching partner companies, selecting two and writing an application letter, making substantial demands on the academic placement tutor. An intentionally stressful exercise required transforming researchers’ presentations into drug-marketing pitches within 48 hours. Participation was initially hesitant but grew with confidence, and students requested more writing practice for different audiences.
The first module cohort had four students and the second seven; all first-cohort graduates were employed by pharmaceutical companies within six months, mostly where they had undertaken placements. Some live projects involved partner companies under academic supervision, and some students presented at conferences or published in peer-reviewed journals. Graduates valued discovering medical communications and learning from practising professionals.
The MSc ended after two runs because low recruitment made it unsustainable; difficulty reaching the right audience amid better-known postgraduate options may have contributed. A proposed online successor did not progress. Lessons from the module included the following.
- Accreditation and validation provide rigour and evidence of master’s-level learning.
- University–industry collaboration is essential to development and delivery and can be enjoyable and enlightening.
- Students respond well and are employable in the field.
- Staff-time costs remain high regardless of cohort size, with several lecturers needed for face-to-face delivery.
- Marketing must reach the intended audience.
- Stakeholder commitment is needed for sustained delivery.
- Collaborative development, content, delivery, assessment and evaluation can provide an example of good practice.
- Online delivery of an accredited module remains possible.