Applied Theatre and Drama in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thematic arts have been integrated throughout various undergraduate medical education programs to improve students’ clinical skills, knowledge, and behaviours to be clinically competent physicians. Applied theatre and drama use theatrical performances and exercises respectively to guide education. Several medical schools across Canada and the United States have incorporated applied theatre and drama within their curriculums, but there is currently no compilation of these initiatives. Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews, the two authors searched journal databases for articles pertaining to theatre/drama activities being used in undergraduate medical education in Canada and the United States; search terms revolved around applied theatre and undergraduate medical education. Twenty articles were read in full, 14 were included in this review. The articles were subjected to content analysis to understand how these studies connected with the CanMEDS framework to understand the impacts and merits of applied theatre and drama in undergraduate medical education. Results: Content analyses generated three parent-categories of how theatre and drama can help medical students improve their communication skills, creative medical learning, and aid their professional development. These three categories touched upon all seven aspects of the CanMEDS framework, indicating the values of drama being included in medical education. Conclusion: This scoping review illustrates the intersections of thematic arts in undergraduate medical education by highlighting how applied theatre or drama activities connect to the entire CanMEDS framework. This review provides insights to current theatre and drama initiatives to aid medical faculty with their undergraduate medical curricula developments.
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 | 0.012 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".