SynthesisBMJ open2020
Content and outcomes of narrative medicine programmes: a systematic review of the literature through 2019.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient autonomy in advance care planning for Parkinson's disease: Systematic review with narrative synthesis.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Pooled it
- [Empowering narrative medicine with artificial intelligence: a new perspective in pediatric medical education].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Arts-based empathy education in healthcare: a critical systematic review of pedagogical mechanisms and evidence gaps.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Narrative medicine interventions for oncology clinicians: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Narrative medicine as a teaching strategy for nursing students to developing professionalism, empathy and humanistic caring ability: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2023Trial
- Article
- Building a stronger relationship: Part 9 of the 10-part series, "Foundations for tomorrow".Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Article
- The new narrative medicine: ethical implications of artificial intelligence on healthcare narratives.Monash bioethics review · 2026Article
- Modern teaching for clinical education involving manual therapy: a 6-pillar approach.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Review
- The influence of narrative medicine on medical students' readiness for holistic care practice: A realist synthesis.Medical education · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of Narrative Competence Scale for Medical Students.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Integrating narrative medicine into post-genocide Rwandan healthcare: a call for trauma-responsive medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Investigating the effects of a short narratology module on empathy and patient-centred communication in early-stage medical students: an empirical mixed-methods pilot study.BMC medical education · 2025Observational
- Migraine and Trauma-Informed Care: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Research.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- The Student Perspectives Initiative: A Novel Program Integrating Medical Students' Own Personal Stories of Illness into the Pre-clinical Medical Curriculum.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- From Stories to Science: Mapping Global Trends in Narrative Medicine Research (2004-2024).Cureus · 2025Article
- Hierarchy hurts: a comparative cross-sectional analysis of empathy and its determinants in medical, midwifery, and nursing students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Expanding the Scope of Narrative Medicine by Emphasizing Stories from Minoritized Communities: A Novel Facilitator Training Program.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Implementing the My Positive Health dialogue tool for children with a chronic condition: barriers and facilitators.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- An exploratory study of addressing bias for child abuse teams: the role of narrative medicine.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesNarrative 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionEvaluation 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.