Purpose: Narrative medicine is a patient-centered approach focusing on the development of narrative skills and self-awareness that incorporates “attending, representing, and affiliating” in clinical encounters. Acquiring narrative competency promotes clinical performance, and narratives can be used for teaching professionalism, empathy, multicultural education, and professional development. This study was conducted to develop a checklist to validate the framework of a narrative medicine program through consensus of a panel. Methods: This expert panel study was conducted from 2018 to 2019 at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran. It included 2 phases: developing a framework in 2 steps and forming an expert panel to validate the framework in 3 rounds. We adapted a 3-stage narrative medicine model with 9 training activities from Gagne’s theory, developed a framework, and then produced a checklist to validate the framework in a multidisciplinary expert panel that consisted of 7 experts. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to assess the experts’ agreement. The first-round opinions were received by email. Consensus was achieved in the second and third rounds through face-to-face meetings to facilitate interactions and discussion among the experts. Results: Sixteen valid indicators were approved and 100% agreement was obtained among experts (with median values in the range of 7–9 out of a maximum of 9, with no disagreement), and the framework was validated by the expert panel. Conclusion The 16 checklist indicators can be used to evaluate narrative medicine programs as a simple and practical guide to improve teaching effectiveness and promote life-long learning.

Purpose: Narrative medicine consists of the expression of medical experiences and the reflection on narratives to foster empathic communication with patients. Reflecting on narratives increases self-awareness and recognition of the feelings of the narrator or the story’s main character, which in turn affects the audience. This study was conducted to examine the impact of a narrative medicine program on the reflective capacity and empathy of medical students. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was performed during the 2018–2019 academic year at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in Iran involving 135 medical interns in 2 groups (control [n=66] and experimental [n=69]). Interns in the experimental group took part in seven 2-hour reflective practice sessions, while those in the control group underwent no educational intervention. Pre-test and post-test assessments were conducted for both groups using 2 valid and reliable tools for the assessment of reflective capacity and empathy. Mean reflection and empathy scores were compared within groups (between pre- and post-test values) and between groups (using the paired-t test and the t-test; P≤0.05). Results: The mean reflection and empathy scores of the experimental group significantly increased from pre-test to post-test, but those of the control group did not. Moreover, the mean post-test scores were significantly different between the 2 groups (P<0.001). Conclusion Narrative medicine is an effective teaching method that can improve reflective capacity and empathy, thereby ultimately promoting professionalism as a core competency in medicine. Consideration of learning conditions and interdisciplinary teaching are necessary for implementing a narrative medicine program.

BACKGROUND: Graduates of environmental health engineering should be able to manage Social Determinants of Health (SDH) and acquire the essential competencies during their studies at university. This study was performed to determine the expected competencies of environmental health graduates in a way to be able to manage environmental and Social Determinants of Health according to their job description. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was performed using Delphi technique. First, the literature review was done and the Delphi technique was performed in three rounds. The purposeful sampling was used and 50 people were selected among the specialists in the field of environmental health engineering and SDH. Participants answered an open-ended question, for the first round. Then, a questionnaire with 8 areas was designed based on the results of the first round and distributed for the second round. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. The third round was done to reach the agreement on final items. RESULTS: The agreement on the items of the third round of Delphi was more than 70%. The final results showed eight competency areas under which 29 competencies were defined. Competency areas included expert knowledge, reasoning and planning, advocacy, system-based practice, professionalism, instructional expertise, social and personal skills and, research and self-development. The first three priorities of the required competency areas were expert knowledge (4.46 ± 0.55), professionalism (4.42 ± 0.64), and advocacy (4.32 ± 0.77). CONCLUSIONS It is necessary that environmental health engineers achieve necessary competencies regarding managing SDH, upon their graduation. It is suggested to integrate these competencies into the curriculum of environmental and health engineering in Iran universities.
Clinical Competence ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Curriculum ; Delphi Technique ; Environmental Health ; Humans ; Social Determinants of Health