ArticleBMC medical education2021
How can learning effects be measured in Balint groups? Validation of a Balint group questionnaire in China.
Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balint group work in medical education in China: a quantitative analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Face-to-face" is not superior to "face-to-screen": comparing effects of online and offline communication skills course in postgraduate medical students.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Balint groups: an effective tool for improving health professionals' perceived well-being.Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBalint groups aim to reflect doctor-patient relationships on the basis of personal cases. This study reports the validation of a questionnaire aimed at the identification of learning processes among Balint group participants in China.
methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted during Balint group sessions in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai. A heterogeneous sample of different professional groups was intended to adequately capture the reality of Balint work in China. After a Balint group session, the participants were asked to complete the Mandarin version of the Balint group session questionnaire (BGQ-C) and the group questionnaire (GQ), an internationally validated instrument to assess central dimensions of therapeutic relationships during group processes.
resultsQuestionnaires from n = 806 participants from 55 Chinese Balint groups, predominantly comprising individuals with a medical background, were analyzed. Most participants were female (74.6%), and the average age was 34.2 years old (SD = 9.4). The results indicated good to very good reliability (Cronbach's α = .70 to .86; retest r
conclusionsThe BGQ-C is a quick-to-complete, item-based measuring instrument that allows the relevant dimensions of Balint group work to be recorded. This study suggests good psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the composition of constructs in the two countries is different.
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.