A Humanities Curriculum in a Pediatric Training Program

Gottlieb, Susan; Jaglom, Leona; Бялик, І. М.; Gelman, Steven; Ferreira, Yvonne; Sundaram, Revathy; Gudavalli, Madhu; Nadroo, Ali M; Kulpa, J; Narula, Pramod

doi:10.1016/j.acap.2018.04.073

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the second screening stage, we read the full texts of records, identifying a further 109 records to exclude due to our discovering on full-text review that they did not meet our established eligibility criteria (figure 1). Following the full-text screening, 61 records qualified for review 15 22 33–89. However, we discovered that several qualifying records addressed identical NM programming efforts at the same institution: that is, 12 records15 22 41 42 44–48 52 70 84 represented 6 programmes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content and outcomes of narrative medicine programmes: a systematic review of the literature through 2019

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesNarrative medicine (NM) incorporates stories into health sciences paradigms as fundamental aspects of the human experience. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the research question: how effective is the implementation and evaluation of NM programmes in academic medicine and health sciences? We documented objectives, content and evaluation outcomes of NM programming to provide recommendations for future narrative-based education.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature published through 2019 using five major databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and MedEdPORTAL. Eligible NM programming included textual analysis/close reading of published literature and creative/reflective writing. Qualifying participants comprised individuals from academic medicine and health sciences disciplines. We reviewed and categorised programme goals, content and evaluation activities to assess participant satisfaction and programme efficacy. Two members of the research team assessed the risk of bias, independently screening records via a two-round, iterative process to reach consensus on eligibility.ResultsOf 1569 original citations identified, we selected 55 unique programmes (described in 61 records). In all, 41 (75%) programmes reported a form of evaluation; evaluation methods lacked consistency. Twenty-two programmes used quantitative evaluation (13 well described), and 33 programmes used qualitative evaluation (27 well described). Well-described quantitative evaluations relied on 32 different measures (7 validated) and showed evidence of high participant satisfaction and pre-post improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, confidence/personal accomplishment, pedagogical skills and clinical skills. An average of 88.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the programme had positive outcomes. Qualitative evaluation identified high participant satisfaction and improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, perspective-taking/reflection, resilience and burnout detection/mitigation, confidence/personal accomplishment, narrative competence, and ethical inquiry.ConclusionEvaluation suggests that NM programming leads to high participant satisfaction and positive outcomes across various competencies. We suggest best practices and innovative future directions for programme implementation and evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%