Content and outcomes of narrative medicine programmes: a systematic review of the literature through 2019
Содержание и результаты программ нарративной медицины: систематический обзор литературы по 2019 год
2020-01-01
SCID: 54.1/k8b4jzdt
Discuss with AI
academic medicinecreative and reflective writingnarrative medicineprogramme evaluationsystematic review
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
OBJECTIVES: Narrative medicine (NM) incorporates stories into health sciences paradigms as fundamental aspects of the human experience. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the research question: how effective is the implementation and evaluation of NM programmes in academic medicine and health sciences? We documented objectives, content and evaluation outcomes of NM programming to provide recommendations for future narrative-based education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature published through 2019 using five major databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and MedEdPORTAL. Eligible NM programming included textual analysis/close reading of published literature and creative/reflective writing. Qualifying participants comprised individuals from academic medicine and health sciences disciplines. We reviewed and categorised programme goals, content and evaluation activities to assess participant satisfaction and programme efficacy. Two members of the research team assessed the risk of bias, independently screening records via a two-round, iterative process to reach consensus on eligibility. RESULTS: Of 1569 original citations identified, we selected 55 unique programmes (described in 61 records). In all, 41 (75%) programmes reported a form of evaluation; evaluation methods lacked consistency. Twenty-two programmes used quantitative evaluation (13 well described), and 33 programmes used qualitative evaluation (27 well described). Well-described quantitative evaluations relied on 32 different measures (7 validated) and showed evidence of high participant satisfaction and pre-post improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, confidence/personal accomplishment, pedagogical skills and clinical skills. An average of 88.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the programme had positive outcomes. Qualitative evaluation identified high participant satisfaction and improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, perspective-taking/reflection, resilience and burnout detection/mitigation, confidence/personal accomplishment, narrative competence, and ethical inquiry. CONCLUSION: Evaluation suggests that NM programming leads to high participant satisfaction and positive outcomes across various competencies. We suggest best practices and innovative future directions for programme implementation and evaluation.
Key Findings
1
Evaluation was reported for 41 programmes (75%), but methods lacked consistency; quantitative assessments used 32 measures, only 7 of which were validated.
2
Narrative medicine programmes typically combined close reading of published literature with creative or reflective writing for academic medicine and health sciences participants.
3
On average, 88.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that narrative medicine programmes produced positive outcomes; qualitative evaluations similarly reported satisfaction and competency improvements.
4
Quantitative evaluations indicated high participant satisfaction and pre–post improvements in relationship-building, empathy, confidence or personal accomplishment, pedagogical skills, and clinical skills.
5
The systematic review identified 55 unique narrative medicine programmes described across 61 publications through 2019.
Research Object
Narrative medicine programmes in academic medicine and health sciences
Research Subject
Programme content, implementation, evaluation, participant satisfaction, and improvements in professional competencies
Publication Details
Publication Date
2020-01-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest