The state of wellbeing education across North American medical schools: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Medical students experience increased rates of burnout and mental illness compared to the general population. Yet, it is unclear to what extent North American medical schools have adopted formal wellbeing curricula. We sought to establish prevailing themes of existing wellbeing educational interventions to identify opportunities for further curricular development. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify wellbeing education programs implemented for undergraduate medical students across North America. We searched four comprehensive databases and grey literature and only included published original research. Two independent researchers screened all papers, with a third resolving disagreements. Two researchers conducted the data extraction using a continuously refined template, with a third researcher resolving any discrepancies. Results: We identified 3996 articles in the initial search of which 30 met inclusion criteria and were included for further analysis. The most common types of interventions were mindfulness and meditation practices. 27 studies found that their wellbeing sessions contributed to positive wellbeing outcomes of learners. Conclusions: Our review identified that there are few wellbeing curricular initiatives that have been evaluated and published in the literature. Additionally, the methodology and rigour of wellbeing curriculum evaluation to date leaves significant room for improvement. The existing literature does suggest that the adoption of a wellbeing curriculum has the potential to improve outcomes for medical students. These findings can be used to assist the development of a validated wellbeing curricular framework for wellbeing initiatives. However, while such a curriculum may represent an effective tool in enhancing medical trainee wellbeing, it cannot effect change in isolation; lasting and meaningful change will require concurrent shifts within the broader systemic framework and cultural fabric of the medical education system.
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 | 0.020 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".