ArticleBMC medical education2026
Application of narrative medicine combined with clinical thinking model in neurology teaching.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundNarrative medicine is a medical model that emphasizes the use of narrative skills in clinical practice to enhance healthcare professionals’ attention to and support for patients. The study aimed to investigate whether the narrative medicine teaching model, combined with clinical thinking, is more effective than the traditional teaching model in neurology teaching.
methodsThe two classes of clinical medical students who were interned in the Department of Neurology of Shandong First Medical University from January to December 2022 were set up as a control group (50 students) and an experimental group (50 students), who were taught with the same chapter of “Cerebral Infarction”. The experimental group received the narrative medicine teaching model combined with clinical thinking, while the control group received the traditional teaching model. At the end of the course, the effectiveness of the teaching was evaluated using a patients’ assessment of clinical services, the SEGUE framework and a post-course examination.
resultsThe experimental group, which utilized the narrative medicine combined with clinical thinking teaching model, achieved significantly higher scores in both theoretical examination and case analysis compared to the control group. The experimental group demonstrated a significantly higher level of patient satisfaction when compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, students in the experimental group performed significantly better in physician-patient communication than those in the control group (p < 0.05). The integration of narrative medicine with clinical thinking enhanced students’ understanding of disease and improved patient communication skills.
conclusionsThe narrative medicine teaching model combined with clinical thinking appears to be more effective than the traditional teaching model in enhancing students’ understanding of diseases, humanistic qualities, and clinical skills. This approach may offer better teaching effectiveness and warrants further exploration and promotion in medical education.
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.