The Role of Online Arts and Humanities in Medical Student Education: Mixed Methods Study of Feasibility and Perceived Impact of a 1-Week Online Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The arts and humanities have been integrated into medical student education worldwide. Integrated arts and humanities courses have been found to serve four primary functions: mastering skills, perspective taking, personal insight, and social advocacy. To what extent and how arts and humanities programs achieve these educational outcomes remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to explore how the arts and humanities may lead to perceived benefits in clinical skills development, professional identity formation, and self-care, and to evaluate the feasibility of delivering an arts and humanities-based course online. METHODS: We developed and delivered a 1-week online arts and humanities course to second- through fourth-year medical students. A total of 18 students enrolled in the course across its 2 offerings in Spring 2020. The course was primarily visual arts based but also included activities based in other arts and humanities, such as literature, reflective writing, dance, film, music, philosophy, and religion. Using a mixed methods approach, daily polls assessed student engagement in and perceptions of the various activities, and a postcourse survey assessed student perceptions of the course as a whole. RESULTS: At least 93% of poll respondents (14/15 to 17/18) across the 2 cohorts rated each type of activity as good or excellent. Qualitative analysis of student responses to the postcourse survey revealed themes concerning both the form (overall course design and online format) and the function of the course (skills development, appreciation of new perspectives, and personal inquiry). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggested that the arts and humanities may support the development of clinically relevant skills and attitudes. A more unique finding was that integrative arts and humanities courses delivered online-including those that are primarily visual arts based-engage students and may yield personal and professional benefits.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".