Developing a Program to Promote Stress Resilience and Self-Care in First Year Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facilitating stress resilience in future physicians is an important role of medical educators and administrators. We developed an extracurricular program and pilot tested the program on first year medical students. METHODS: Presentations on topics related to mental health, help-seeking, and stress resilience were presented (one topic per session). Attendance was voluntary. Attendees were requested to complete anonymous evaluations following each presentation. Primary outcome variables were rates of agreement that the presentation (1) was interesting, (2) provided valuable information, and (3) provided information relevant for the student's future practice as a physician. RESULTS: Each of the seven topics was attended on average by approximately half of the student body. Evaluations were very positive that presentations were interesting and provided information useful to maintaining balance during medical school (all had ≥85% rates of agreement). Evaluations by students were variable (41%-88% rates of agreement) on whether each presented information relevant for future practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results support that first-year medical students value explicit guidance on ways to bolster stress resilience and self-care during medical school. It is important to clarify with each presentation how the information is relevant to their future practice as a physician.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".