The Body in Mind: Understanding Cognitive Processes (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy)

Product Information

Aukes LC, Geertsma J, Cohen-Schotanus J, et al. The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education. Med Teach. 2007;29(2–3):177–82. Our qualitative findings indicate that the effects of MBM intervention are deeply embedded in the social framework, discourse, and perspective of its practitioners. Consequently, MBM interventions not only affect measurable outcomes, such as mindfulness, perceived stress, and empathy, but may also influence how students relate to themselves and others, the medical field, and their role as doctors. This supports previous qualitative research conducted by Saunders et al. (2017) at GUSOM, who reported meaningful social connections, self-discovery, and an increased valuing of the doctor-patient relationship as central themes of their study. In this study, data triangulation located a central dynamic of these findings in a reciprocative process between self and the other (see Fig. 1) fostered by meaningful encounters between individual participants and the group.

Body in Mind: Galleries

Neumann M, Edelhäuser F, Tauschel D, et al. Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med. 2011;86(8):996–1009. Esch T, Sonntag U, Esch SM, et al. Stress management and mind-body medicine: a randomized controlled longitudinal evaluation of students’ health and effects of a behavioral group intervention at a middle-size german university (SM-MESH). Forsch Komplementmed. 2013;20(2):129–37.

Free erotic sites

This study hasn’t shown a meaningful change in MBM course participants’ mental or physical health QoL, as assessed by the SF-12, whereas Esch et al. showed an improvement for mental QoL SF-12 levels in MBM group compared to control [ 13]. Yet it is possible that the SF-12 is not suitable for use in a sample of generally healthy medical students. The SF-36, and its short version SF-12, were originally developed to assess QoL changes in patients with reduced health [ 5, 35] and when tested within a sample of healthy patients, the original SF-36 sub-scales, MCS and PCS, were not always found to be independent [ 27]. Potential MCS changes in our healthy population sample may therefore have been masked. Kraemer KM, Luberto CM, O’Bryan EM, et al. Mind-body skills training to improve distress tolerance in medical students: a pilot study. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(2):219–28. Reith TP. Burnout in United States Healthcare Professionals: a narrative review. Cureus. 2018;10(12):e3681. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Measures in Health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Causal and Control Beliefs. 1995;01(011):35–7. Hilger-Kolb J, Diehl K, Herr R, et al. Effort-reward imbalance among students at german universities: associations with self-rated health and mental health. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018;91(8):1011–20.

PinkFineArt Body In Mind Galleries PinkFineArt Body In Mind Galleries

Our qualitative analysis yielded four distinct main themes: “connections and relationships,” “well-being and stress reduction,” “self-awareness and personal growth,” and “mind-body-medicine in medical education.” Connections and relationships MBM courses have been evaluated in studies using various self-reported quantitative scores, qualitative surveys, and stress biomarkers. While it was generally found to reduce stress and promote empathy, self-care, and well-being [ 1, 13, 14, 22, 23, 29, 33], results for respective quantitative measures, such as the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), were not always consistent across studies [ 7, 13, 33].This study included quantitative and qualitative data, each gathered from 11 MBM courses conducted between October 2012 and February 2019. However, between 2013 and 2014, quantitative and qualitative data collection was not upheld for two consecutive courses. Demographic characteristics and SF−12 scores were introduced from October 2015 onwards. A total of 112 medical students were included in the quantitative data analysis. Since the first evaluation of demographic characteristics in 2015, there were 48 female (70.1%) and 20 male (29.9%) participants with a mean age of 26.2 years (range = 19–42, SD = 4.9). Qualitative data were collected from 11 focus groups comprising 87 participants (62 females, 25 males), with an average interview duration of 52.8 min.