Mindfulness training, a learning process towards three directions: oneself, others, the academic system in medical education: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research suggests that well-being in medical students can be enhanced through participation in targeted educational programs such as mindfulness. However, research has largely adopted a quantitative design, which appears limited in its ability to capture the complexity of the learning and teaching process of mindfulness. The purpose of the study was to obtain an in-depth analysis of the lived experiences of medical students just after completing an 8-week Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program within an optional. Eighteen medical students from beginning to residency were interviewed using a semi-structured face to face interview. Transcripts were analyzed using the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis method. Seven themes were described and organized into three superordinate themes describing a learning process towards three directions: oneself(1), others(2), the academic system(3). (1) It’s an experience lived as an intimate and sensitive encounter through the awareness and discovery of body sensation. The healing dimension is found including behavioral changes and emotional regulation. (2) The teaching highlights a new listening attitude and offers a way of experiencing empathy. Learning mindfulness appeared as a dynamic process, sometimes uncomfortable that can lead to confusion. (3) Finally, being supported by the university in this caring proposition seems to be an important confidence-building dimension. The MBSR program appeared as a pedagogical resource for learning self-care skills and caring for others in medical education using a multidimensional learning process. Further work would be useful to clarify process variables and risk factors in order to continue to promote student well-being.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".