A pilot feasibility study of a peer-led mindfulness program for medical students
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: Mindfulness meditation has gained momentum in medical circles for bolstering wellbeing and other facets of professionalism. This study evaluated the feasibility and benefits of a peer-led mindfulness meditation program (MMP) on medical student wellness and professionalism. METHOD: Pre-clerkship students were recruited and randomized to the 8-week MMP or wait-list. Feasibility outcomes included ease of recruitment, program attendance and homework compliance. Other outcomes included self-reported psychological distress, empathy, self-compassion, mindfulness, altruism and program satisfaction. RESULTS: The MMP decreased levels of stress and enhanced mindfulness, self-compassion and altruism from baseline to post-study. Changes were not significant for the wait-list condition. Although satisfaction with the MMP was high compliance was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: A peer-led MMP is feasible and may be a promising approach to enhance medical student wellbeing. Further research is needed to explore strategies to improve program compliance in this student population.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 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