Creative art and medical student development: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although many medical schools include arts-based activities in their curricula, empirical evidence is lacking regarding how the creation of art might impact medical students and their professional development. We used a qualitative research design in order to understand this process. METHODS: We conducted and analysed interviews with 16 medical students who had created and presented original artwork in the context of a required narrative-based undergraduate medical education programme. Teams of students collaborated to create interpretive projects based on common themes arising from conversations with individuals with chronic illness and their families. Open-ended questions were utilised to explore the conceptualisation and presentation of the projects, the dynamics of teamwork and the meaning(s) they might have for the students' professional development. We identified themes using repeated contextual reading of the transcripts, which also enhanced accuracy of the interpretations and ensured saturation of themes. RESULTS: Several major themes and sub-themes were identified. The creation of art led to a sense of personal growth and development, including reflection on past life experiences, self-discovery and an awareness of art as a creative outlet. Students also reported an enhanced sense of community and the development of skills in collaboration. Lastly, students reflected on the human dimensions of illness and medical care and identified an enhanced awareness of the experience of those with illness. CONCLUSIONS: A programme involving the creation of art based on stories of illness encouraged students' explorations of conceptions of the self, family and society, as well as illness and medical care, while enhancing the development of a collaborative and patient-centred worldview. Creative art can be a novel educational tool to promote a reflective, humanistic medical practice.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".