Recommendations for the quantitative basic evaluation of mind-body medicine courses for university students - results of a consensus-based, systematic decision-making process by experts.

Daniela Adam, Peter Vogelsänger, Benno Brinkhaus, Barbara Stöckigt

Abstract readConsensus Statement

In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniela AdamInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. daniela.adam@charite.de.

Peter VogelsängerInstitute for General Medicine, University Hospital, Otto-Von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Benno BrinkhausInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Barbara StöckigtInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an increasing range of mind-body medicine (MBM) courses in Germany to support university students in dealing with stress. The evaluation of these varies and often only has a small number of participants due to the limited group size of the courses. The aim of this project was the development of a quantitative basic evaluation that can be used across all sites that conduct MBM courses.

methodsIn a consensus-based and systematic decision-making process, the learning objectives and various questionnaires for the evaluation of MBM courses were discussed and evaluated by experts according to defined criteria. The process was iterative, in which the reflection and definition of the learning objectives and the questionnaires were conditional and adapted if necessary. The recommendations for the basic evaluation of students' MBM courses were developed by consensus among the experts.

resultsFor the experts, the most important learning objectives of the MBM courses were stress reduction and self-experience with the exercises. A total of 21 questionnaires were evaluated from nine topics: mindfulness, empathy, self-reflection, self-efficacy, resilience, stress, sense of coherence, quality of life, and well-being. Finally, eight questionnaires were recommended by the expert group for use in a basic evaluation: stress (PSS-10), quality of life (WHOQOL-Bref), mindfulness (MAAS), self-efficacy (GSE), self-compassion (SCS), empathy (SPF), self-reflection (GRAS) and sense of coherence (SOC-13). Further questionnaires were recommended as "optional". An additional qualitative evaluation is recommended for a broader and deeper understanding of the quantitative results.

conclusionsThe proposed basic evaluation is the central result of the iterative consensus-based decision-making process, which reflects the learning objectives of the underlying MBM courses. We hope that the basic evaluation will be integrated into other MBM courses so that results of various courses can be pooled and compared across sites in the future. This could increase the informative value of the evaluations. Furthermore, researchers could consider the use of the basic evaluation in clinically controlled trials on MBM.

trial registrationThe project was not registered in a clinical trial registry because no results from health care interventions on human participants have been analyzed or reported.

Indexed as

Mind-Body TherapiesCurriculumDecision MakingGermanyHumansQuality of LifeStress, PsychologicalStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesDecision-making processIterative processLearning objectivesMedical educationMind–body medicineQuantitative evaluationUniversity students

Identifiers

PMID39605069

DOI10.1186/s12909-024-06387-x

PMCPMC11600834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.