The perceptions and experiences of medical students in a pediatric buddy program: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Partnership programs between medical students and patients provide students with non-clinical experiences that enhance medical learning, especially with respect to humanistic care. We explored the perceptions and experiences of medical students in a pediatric oncology buddy program. METHODS: Using a basic interpretive qualitative approach, we conducted interviews with 15 medical students at three time points: before meeting his/her buddy (pre-interview), four months into the partnership (4-month interview), and at the end of the partnership (post interview). We then conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data. RESULTS: All students in the program who met the study criteria (N = 15/16) participated. The medical students highlighted that: (a) providing support to buddies and their families is important; (b) providing care to children with serious illnesses is emotionally difficult; (c) developing deep connections with buddies and their families is rewarding; and (d) gaining empathy and personal fulfillment from buddies and their families is inevitable. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an understanding of medical students' perceptions and experiences in a pediatric oncology, non-clinical buddy program. Tailored one-on-one partnerships between medical students and pediatric oncology patients play an important role in medical education and contributes to the teaching of humanistic care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".