Understanding students’ motivations for participating in a mindfulness course: a qualitative analysis of medical students’ views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Improving medical students' wellbeing and empowerment through curricular activities is a topic of interest worldwide. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly implemented in medical education often as part of elective courses. To better understand training outcomes and adjust curriculum to students' needs, we will explore why will medical students participate in meditation-based education? METHODS: We analyzed 29 transcripts from the first session of an 8-week MBSR program offered to medical students in French. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a qualitative content thematic analysis and the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Analyses resulted in three themes describing students' motivation: (1) Medical education and the physician's role, i.e. improving interpersonal skills, acquiring skills oriented toward a more integrative medicine, being more productive in a highly competitive context. (2) Caring for my health i.e. aiming at stress reduction, emotion regulation, and improving self-compassion. (3) A quest for meaning, i.e. optimizing meaning of care, and meaning of life. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the congruence between the perceived motivations and the evidence on the effect of mindfulness on self-care, the development of humanistic medical skills, and the meaning of care. Some findings raise the issue of the limits of using mindfulness to enhance one's productivity. Notably, participants articulated the need for self-care as in mindfulness training, with the ability to care for others.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.018 | 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".