ReviewJournal of medical education and curricular development
Schwartz Rounds in Higher Education Settings: A Systematic Review of the Research with Recommendations.
Review in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured peer engagement for early-stage medical students provides a safe space and creates a sense of community, combatting imposter syndrome and improving wellbeing.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Exploring factors that contribute to the successful implementation of Schwartz Rounds in higher education institutions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigher education institutions (HEIs) have recently integrated Schwartz Rounds (Rounds) as innovative ways of supporting health professional students' reflective practice, interprofessional learning and compassionate care. Emerging evidence suggests that Rounds benefit students' shared sense of belonging and insight into emotional aspects of training and care, providing safe places to share experiences and reflect. Our review examines the current literature regarding health students' evaluation of Rounds in HEIs, exploring experiences and perceived benefits of participating. We consider methodological issues with the existing literature and propose ways of addressing these in future research.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted on EBSCO, PsycINFO, PubMed and ASSIA to identify available literature relating to Schwartz Rounds in higher education. Eight studies - six with a mixed method design and two qualitative - were included in the review. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed. Evaluation survey data and themes generated from qualitative responses were considered together and a narrative synthesis was constructed.
resultsDespite challenges with differing measurements and scale usage, five themes were identified reflecting the experience and perceived benefits for students attending Rounds. Students highlighted the value of peer connection and communication; normalisation of emotions; collaborative reflection and self-awareness; and the relevance of Rounds in their daily work and patient care. Students also commented on barriers to participation including Rounds' multidisciplinary nature, their group size, and the presence of staff. The majority of students rated Rounds as excellent or exceptional and agreed they should be integrated into the curriculum.
conclusionsOur findings on Schwartz Rounds in higher education suggest they support student reflective practice and confidence in providing compassionate, high-quality patient care. However, the quality of research in this area is mixed, reflecting the relatively recent integration of Rounds in Higher education, and the challenges of implementing and evaluating new interventions in educational settings.
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.