Six Ways Problem-Based Learning Cases Can Sabotage Patient-Centered Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Problem-based learning (PBL) cases tell a story of a medical encounter; however, the version of the story is typically very biomedical in focus. The patient and her or his experience of the situation are rarely the focus of the case despite a prevalent discourse of patient-centeredness in contemporary medical education. This report describes a qualitative study that explored the question, "How does PBL teach medical students about what matters in medicine?" METHOD: The qualitative study, culminating in 2008, involved three data collection strategies: (1) a discourse analysis of a set of PBL cases from 2005 to 2006, (2) observation of a PBL tutorial group, and (3) semistructured, in-depth, open-ended interviews with medical educators and medical students. RESULTS: In this report, using data gathered from 67 PBL cases, 26 hours of observation, and 14 interviews, the author describes six specific ways in which PBL cases-if not thoughtfully conceptualized and authored-can serve to overlook social considerations, thereby undermining a patient-centered approach. These comprise the detective case, the shape-shifting patient, the voiceless PBL person, the joke name, the disembodied PBL person, and the stereotypical PBL person. CONCLUSIONS: PBL cases constitute an important component of undergraduate medical education. Thoughtful authoring of PBL cases has the potential to reinforce, rather than undermine, principles of patient-centeredness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".