MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408700435 · doi:10.1177/23821205251324295

Fostering Reflexivity in Medical Students: Is Patient Engagement a Promising Avenue? A Qualitative Case Study

2025· article· en· W4408700435 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julie Massé, Sarah Numainville, Marie‐Claude Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsReflexivityAction (physics)Qualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Citizen journalismPsychologyParticipatory action researchPropositionAction researchPedagogyMedical educationMedicineSociologyNursingEpistemologySocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Reflexivity enables individuals to analyze a situation based on past experience to develop other ways of thinking and perspectives for action. Reflexivity is therefore crucial for the improvement of professional practice. In medical education, recent studies have identified patient engagement as a promising strategy for fostering reflexivity in students; however, few evaluative studies have explored such a link. This article describes the reflexive effects of an intervention that engages patients in small-group discussion workshops about ethical, moral, and social issues arising from practice (as part of an undergraduate medical course at Université Laval) and presents the main processes involved in producing these effects. Methods: The study subscribes to a qualitative case study design. Cases are three groups that received the intervention in winter 2021. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews and non-participatory observation. Analysis entailed within-case and cross-case analysis. The study mobilizes Sandars' proposition of a three-stage reflexive process which is enhanced with other models of reflexivity. Results: The main reflexive effects and processes involved: (i) better understanding disembodied theoretical content, (ii) awareness of the limits of the clinical view for grasping complex situations, (iii) questioning one's convictions about the self and the profession, and (iv) awareness of the patient-doctor social distance. When considering concrete implications for action, reflexive effects refer to a patient-centered approach, implying other ways of doing, being, and thinking as a physician. Conclusions: This study was an opportunity to identify patient engagement in discussion workshops as a promising avenue to foster medical students' reflexivity and to better understand its whys and hows. It sheds new light on patient engagement's relevance and value in medical education. By identifying factors influencing the reflexive process, it also provides concrete support to medical schools wishing to commit to transformative educational postures and approaches involving patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Education and Curricular DevelopmentSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207