ArticleBMC medical education2023
Three-year evaluation of a program teaching social determinants of health in community-based medical education: a general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community diagnosis as a transformative learning approach to enhance medical students' community orientation and understanding social determinant of health: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Cross-disciplinary risk prediction for muscle weakness and physical decline in older adults: A machine learning model integrating social determinants of health and clinical characteristics.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Learning about social suffering through illness narrative: possibilities and challenges.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Medical students' experiential learning on social determinants of health: a constructivist qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A four-Axis-Method to Evaluate a Part of an Undergraduate Medical Students' Curriculum.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2024Article
- Workplace-based learning about health promotion in individual patient care: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial determinants of health (SDH) are intricately intertwined with various social and economic factors. Reflection is essential for learning about SDH. However, only a few reports have focused on reflection in SDH programs; most were cross-sectional studies. We aimed to longitudinally evaluate a SDH program in a community-based medical education (CBME) curriculum that we introduced in 2018 based on the level of reflection and content on SDH in students' reports.
methodsStudy design: General inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Education program: A 4-week mandatory clinical clerkship in general medicine and primary care at the University of Tsukuba School of Medicine in Japan was provided to all fifth- and sixth-year medical students. Students underwent a 3-week rotation in community clinics and hospitals in suburban and rural areas of Ibaraki Prefecture. After a lecture on SDH on the first day, students were instructed to prepare a structural case description based on encounters during the curriculum. On the final day, students shared their experiences in a small group session and submitted a report on SDH. The program was continuously improved and faculty development was provided. STUDY
participantsStudents who completed the program during October 2018-June 2021. ANALYSIS: Levels of reflection were categorized as reflective, analytical, or descriptive. The content was analyzed based on the Solid Facts framework.
resultsWe analyzed 118 reports from 2018-19, 101 reports from 2019-20, and 142 reports from 2020-21. There were 2 (1.7%), 6 (5.9%), and 7 (4.8%) reflective reports; 9 (7.6%), 24 (23.8%), and 52 (35.9%) analytical reports; and 36 (30.5%), 48 (47.5%), and 79 (54.5%) descriptive reports, respectively. The others were not evaluable. The number of Solid Facts framework items in reports were 2.0 ± 1.2, 2.6 ± 1.3, and 3.3 ± 1.4, respectively.
conclusionsStudents' understanding of SDH deepened as the SDH program in the CBME curriculum improved. Faculty development might have contributed to the results. Reflective understanding of SDH might require more faculty development and integrated education of social science and medicine.
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.