ArticleBMC medical education2026
Framing analysis as a pedagogical tool for broadening medical students' understanding of cancer: a course evaluation.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is a complex phenomenon encompassing a range of cultural and biomedical dimensions. Traditional medical curricula often fail to reflect this complexity, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary approaches that help medical students develop a more integrated understanding of disease by connecting diverse knowledge, patient perspectives, and societal contexts. This study evaluates how framing analysis-a method from communication studies-can be used as a pedagogical tool to broaden medical students' understanding and critical thinking about complex health issues, using cancer as a key example.
methodsWe conducted a course evaluation of a two-week elective titled "Cancer Communication" within the University of Oslo's medical program, offered annually to approximately 20 third-year students. Working in teams, students explored research questions related to cancer communication through lectures, workshops, guided research, and excursions. They learned framing analysis by applying a published tool for examining public cancer discourse. Anonymous pre-course free associations and post-course reflections were analyzed thematically to identify changes in students' understanding of cancer during the course. Students' team presentations, orally evaluated as part of the final course examination, supported our assessment of how students applied framing analysis to cancer-related communication topics.
resultsStudents' initial responses reflected relatively simple and emotionally charged associations with cancer, often centered on fear, death, treatment burden, and familiar cancer stereotypes. Their post-course reflections suggested increased media literacy, critical thinking, and the ability to integrate multiple narratives about cancer. In their final presentations, students applied framing analysis to critically evaluate media portrayals and reflect on how different framings shape public and professional perceptions of disease. The post-course reflections further suggested greater empathy for cancer patients and an increased awareness of social and cultural influences on medical practice.
conclusionsIntegrating framing analysis into medical education appeared to broaden students' understanding of cancer as a multidimensional phenomenon, supporting reflective and interdisciplinary thinking and encouraging them to move beyond traditional biomedical perspectives. These findings suggest that framing analysis and similar communication-based approaches may serve as useful pedagogical tools in health professions education to enhance critical reflection.
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.