Acceptability and perceived effectiveness of a single-session mindfulness intervention for medical residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Medical residents report high levels of stress, with many work-related demands contributing to their experience of heightened stress. Mindfulness training has been suggested as a beneficial strategy for stress management with residents; however, many mindfulness programs are time-consuming, and compliance with conventional mindfulness training programs becomes challenging given the intense, competing time commitments of residency. The present study sought to evaluate the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of a single-session, mindfulness-based stress management workshop for medical residents.Methods: Residents (n = 142) from family medicine, internal medicine and general surgical residency programs participated in a 1.5-hour mindfulness workshop in 2016 and completed: a measure of workshop satisfaction immediately post-workshop; a measure of adherence to suggested strategies 4–6 weeks post-workshop; and measures of stress, mindfulness and positive and negative affect immediately post-workshop and 4–6 weeks post-workshop.Results: Results revealed high levels of satisfaction with the workshop. Participants who used the recommended strategies over the 4 to 6-week post-workshop period reported significant increases in mindfulness and significant decreases in stress at follow-up.Conclusions: Results suggest single-session mindfulness training can be beneficial for residents who use the strategies effectively; however, ensuring strategy use following training is challenging. Future research is needed to investigate facilitators and barriers to strategy use.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".