Assessing a faculty development workshop in narrative medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Narrative medicine is increasingly popular in undergraduate medical curricula. Moreover, although faculty are expected to use narrative approaches in teaching, few faculty development learning activities have been described. In addition, data on the impact of faculty development initiatives designed to teach narrative are limited, and there is a paucity of tools to assess their impact. AIMS: To assess the impact and outcomes of a faculty development workshop on narrative medicine. METHODS: Two groups of clinical teachers were studied; one group had already attended a half-day narrative medicine workshop (N = 10) while the other had not yet attended (N = 9). Both groups were interviewed about their uses of narrative in teaching and practice. Additionally, the understanding of a set of narrative skills was assessed by first viewing a video of a narrative-based teaching session followed by completion of an 18-item assessment tool. RESULTS: Both groups reported that they used narrative in both their teaching and clinical practice. Those who had attended the workshop articulated a more nuanced understanding of narrative terms compared to those who had not yet attended. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first to describe measureable impacts of a faculty development workshop on narrative medicine.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".