Cited by 38Innovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical EducationMental Health and Patient Involvement

Medical students' learning from patient-led teaching: experiential versus biomedical knowledge

Henriksen, Ann-Helen, Ringsted, Charlotte·2014·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore how medical students perceive the experience of learning from patient instructors (patients with rheumatism who teach health professionals and students) in the context of coupled faculty-led and patient-led teaching session. This was an explorative study with a qualitative approach based on focus group interviews. Analysis was based on a prior developed model of the characteristics of learning from patient instructors. The authors used this model as sensitizing concepts for the analysis of data while at the same time being open to new insights by constant comparison of old and new findings. Results showed a negotiation both between and within the students of the importance of patients' experiential knowledge versus scientific biomedical knowledge. On one hand students appreciated the experiential learning environment offered in the PI-led sessions representing a patient-centred approach, and acknowledged the importance of the PIs' individual perspectives and experiential knowledge. On the other hand, representing the scientific biomedical perspective and traditional step-by step teaching, students expressed unfamiliarity with the unstructured experiential learning and scepticism regarding the credibility of the patients' knowledge. This study contributes to the understanding of the complexity of involving patients as teachers in healthcare education and initiates a discussion on how to complement faculty-led teaching with patient-led teaching involving varying degrees of patient autonomy in the planning and delivering of the teaching.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-013-9454-8

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henriksen, A.-H., & Ringsted, C.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Henriksen, Ann-Helen
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2013-04-17
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
7-17
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2115873051
Cited by
38
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
medical students, experiential knowledge, biomedical knowledge, rheumatism, patient-centred education, medical education
MeSH terms
Attitude, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Male, Professional-Patient Relations, Students, Medical, Focus Groups, Problem-Based Learning, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review