ArticleBMC medical education2026
Balint group work in medical education in China: a quantitative analysis.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBalint group work have been increasingly integrated into medical education worldwide. However, quantitative evaluations of their application in medical education using specialized instruments remain limited. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the application of Balint group work in medical education in China by assessing students’ perceived learning outcomes and group processes using the Balint Group Questionnaire (BGQ), and to examine factors associated with BGQ scores.
methodsThe Balint group work was embedded within a mandatory medical clinical communication course for postgraduate students. A total of 284 eligible students were approached, and 139 students (48.9%) provided complete questionnaire data and were included in the final analysis. Students could participate in up to six sessions of Balint group work. The BGQ was administered after each session to assess perceived effectiveness, operationalized as BGQ subscale scores reflecting reflective learning and group dynamics. Reliability and validity of the BGQ in this student population were evaluated. Correlation and subgroup analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with BGQ scores.
resultsCronbach’s alpha coefficients indicated good internal consistency of the BGQ. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor model with acceptable model fit. Students with fewer years of clinical work experience reported higher BGQ scores across all subscales. A higher frequency of serving as a case reporter was positively associated with BGQ scores, particularly among students with ≥2 years of work experience.
conclusionsThe BGQ demonstrated good reliability and validity for assessing students’ perceived learning outcomes in Balint group work within medical education. Associations between BGQ scores, clinical experience, and case reporter roles suggest that early introduction of Balint groups and active engagement as case reporters may enhance perceived learning benefits.
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.