Descriptive statistics of 55 programmes in narrative medicine systematic review
| Publication year | 2016 [2012–2018]* |
| Publication type† | |
| Article | 36‡ (59.0) |
| Abstract | 18‡ (29.5) |
| Curriculum | 4‡ (6.6) |
| Unpublished theses | 2 (3.3) |
| Book chapter | 1 (1.6) |
| Programme location | |
| USA/Canada | 46 (83.7) |
| Europe | 5 (9.0) |
| South/Western Asia | 3 (5.5) |
| South America | 1 (1.8) |
| Number of participants | 26.5 [12–47.25) |
| Constituency§ | |
| Medical students | 23 (41.8) |
| Trainees (residents/fellows) | 22 (40.0) |
| Faculty/Physician non-faculty | 17 (30.9) |
| Other staff (eg, administrators, paramedical personnel, community workers) | 9 (16.4) |
| Nurses/Nursing students | 9 (16.4) |
| Other students (eg, graduate students) | 2 (3.6) |
| Programme goals§ | |
| Narrative goals§ | |
| Reflection | 23 (41.8) |
| Empathy | 22 (40.0) |
| Communication/Attentive listening/Narrative competence | 20 (36.4) |
| Resilience/Burnout detection/Mitigation | 9 (16.4) |
| Cultural competence | 3 (5.5) |
| Wellness | 3 (5.5) |
| Writing | 3 (5.5) |
| Narrative skills for pedagogy | 2 (3.6) |
| Clinical/Medical skills§ | |
| Clinical competence | 13 (23.6) |
| Professionalism and vocation | 13 (23.6) |
| Medical team functioning | 9 (16.4) |
| Number of sessions | 5 ([3–11.5] |
| Hours in programme | 8 (3-17) |
| Programme activities‡ | |
| Reading published narratives and writing reflectively | 55 (100) |
| Group discussion | 46 (83.6) |
| Sharing/Workshopping writing | 29 (52.7) |
| Other (eg, interviews, observations, portfolios, writing a patient's story, online forum) | 18 (32.7) |
| Programme evaluation methods¶ | |
| Quantitative—well described | 13 (23.6) |
| Quantitative—incomplete description | 9 (16.4) |
| Qualitative—well described | 27 (49.1) |
| Qualitative—incomplete description | 6 (10.9) |
| None/Not specified | 14 (25.5) |
Data are N and interquartile range (Q1–Q3) or percent (%).
*Two studies in the same year counted as one programme; two studies in different years counted as two programmes.
†Percentages are calculated based on 61 records.
‡Programme was represented by more than one publication type (eg, article and curriculum).
§Responses are not mutually exclusive, so percentages are over 100%.
¶Fourteen studies used a mixed methods, with both qualitative and quantitative outcomes reported, so percentages are over 100%.