Background
Patient values and preferences are important in clinical practice guideline development, but responses indicating reliance on physician judgment may be difficult to interpret. We examined whether such reliance can coexist with explicit preferences about treatment outcomes and trade-offs.
Methods
We conducted an exploratory secondary analysis of a 22-item cross-sectional survey completed by 14 adults with anal cancer recruited from four hospitals during guideline development. The survey assessed decision-making participation, responses to specific clinical scenarios, rankings of six treatment goals, and treatment-acceptance thresholds. Ten scenario items included the option “I would follow my treating physician’s judgment.” Analyses were descriptive and emphasized within-participant response patterns.
Results
Ten participants (71.4%) generally preferred shared decision-making, yet 11 selected physician judgment in at least one scenario. All 11 completed a full ranking of treatment goals, and 9 completed both trade-off threshold items. Among seven participants who relied on physician judgment for salvage treatment, all completed the ranking and six completed both thresholds; five required at least a 20% survival improvement to accept surgery resulting in a permanent stoma. Although permanent stoma ranked fourth among six goals overall, 11 of 13 respondents required at least a 20% survival improvement to accept such surgery.
Conclusions
Reliance on physician judgment did not necessarily indicate an absence of patient preferences. Guideline-related preference studies should distinguish preferences for the decision process, general priorities among outcomes, and context-specific benefit-risk trade-offs. Responses indicating reliance on physician judgment should not automatically be treated as “no preference” or missing information.

Background
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is an important element of medical education. However, nationwide data on EBM education in Korean medical schools are limited. This study aimed to describe the organizational structure, content, methods, and assessment of EBM education, together with barriers and support needs, and to explore factors associated with variation across schools.
Methods
A 26-item questionnaire was administered to EBM education leaders or course directors at 21 Korean medical schools. Data were analyzed descriptively, and differences by structural and exogenous characteristics were explored using cross-tabulation.
Results
Twenty-one of 40 medical schools responded. All responding institutions offered EBM as a mandatory subject, but 42.9% had no dedicated organizing unit. Coverage of classic EBM steps was high (formulating clinical questions: 95.2%; literature searching: 95.2%; critical appraisal: 76.2%), whereas AI-assisted evidence summarization was included in only 19.0%. Only 19.0% reported systematic theory–clinical integration, and 57.1% left bedside EBM to preceptor discretion. Demand for a standardized curriculum guide (90.5%) and faculty development (76.2%) was high, and 100% were willing to use externally developed materials. Variation in key outcomes was associated with organizational governance but was not explained by exogenous structural characteristics such as class size, clinical infrastructure, establishment type, or region.
Conclusions
EBM education in Korean medical schools is universally mandatory but uneven in organization, theory–clinical integration, faculty capacity, assessment, and AI integration. These differences appeared to reflect governance more than resource size, suggesting that society-level support should include organizational models alongside standardized curricula, assessment tools, and faculty development.