The pedagogical value of parallel charts for dental students in clinical education: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Narrative medicine is a novel approach aimed at attending to the socio-emotional aspects of illness and care. Parallel charts represent one of the tools of narrative medicine and are brief accounts of care in which practitioners can express their feelings and emotions towards patients and treatments. They are, therefore, intended to collect practitioners' feedback in the form of "narrative" tools to encourage reflection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-centre observational pilot study comprising the setting up and analysis of parallel charts in two classes of 5th and 6th year students in a Paediatric Dentistry Department in France. Forty-four students completed 126 parallel charts. A qualitative, thematic, analysis was conducted and the charts were also classified according to the three types of description of illness made by Arthur Kleinman. RESULTS: This work showed that dental students mainly compiled parallel charts from a disease-centred perspective. The qualitative analysis identified the various themes addressed by the student: relationship with patients and managing children's anxiety, student stress, relationship with the environment or with lecturers. CONCLUSION: The qualitative analysis highlighted the usefulness of compiling parallel charts by the students to allow them to express both positive and negative feelings, and thus to adopt a self-evaluative approach regarding their practices based on emotional impact. Parallel charts may improve patient-practitioner relationship, but more extensive studies over longer periods of time need to be undertaken.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".