Balint group work in medical education in China: a quantitative analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Balint 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Cronbach’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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.