Exploring the Benefits of an Optional Theatre Module on Medical Student Well-Being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical students struggle with varied stressors and developing adequate coping mechanisms is essential. PURPOSE: This study examined medical student perceptions of the well-being impact of a theatre-based course. METHODS: Eighteen 1st-year medical students at the University of Alberta participated in 3 focus groups following the conclusion of a theatre-based module that was piloted in the first quarter of 2010. A semistructured protocol was used to guide the focus groups, which were audiotaped and transcribed. Along with general feedback, impact on personal development and student well-being were discussed. Thematic aspects of these discussions were qualitatively analyzed. FINDINGS: During the focus groups, medical students identified three aspects of the theatre-based module that contributed to their sense of overall well-being. These included (a) fun/relaxation, (b) enhanced relationships with each other, and (c) personal growth/resilience. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that participating in an optional theatre module can enhance medical student well-being. Our analysis suggests the need to consider novel, humanities-based curriculum offerings in relation to personal development and well- being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it