A review of creative and expressive writing as a pedagogical tool in medical education.

CONTEXT: The act of writing offers an opportunity to foster self-expression and organisational abilities, along with observation and descriptive skills. These soft skills are relevant to clinical thinking and medical practice. Medical school curricula employ pedagogical approaches suitable for assessing medical and clinical knowledge, but teaching methods for soft skills in critical thinking, listening and verbal expression, which are important in patient communication and engagement, may be less formal. Creative and expressive writing that is incorporated into medical school courses or clerkships offers a vehicle for medical students to develop soft skills. The aim of this review was to explore creative and expressive writing as a pedagogical tool in medical schools in relation to outcomes of medical education. METHODS: This project employed a scoping review approach to gather, evaluate and synthesise reports on the use of creative and expressive writing in US medical education. Ten databases were searched for scholarly articles reporting on creative or expressive writing during medical school. Limitation of the results to activities associated with US medical schools, produced 91 articles. A thematic analysis of the articles was conducted to identify how writing was incorporated into the curriculum. RESULTS: Enthusiasm for writing as a pedagogical tool was identified in 28 editorials and overviews. Quasi-experimental, mixed methods and qualitative studies, primarily writing activities, were aimed at helping students cognitively or emotionally process difficult challenges in medical education, develop a personal identity or reflect on interpersonal skills. The programmes and interventions using creative or expressive writing were largely associated with elective courses or clerkships, and not required courses. CONCLUSIONS: Writing was identified as a potentially relevant pedagogical tool, but not included as an essential component of medical school curricula.

Efficacy and safety of hyaluronan treatment in combination therapy with home exercise for knee osteoarthritis pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate combined with a home exercise program (HEP) in the management of pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: Single-blinded, parallel-design, 1-year clinical study with sequential enrollment. SETTING: University-based outpatient physiatric practice. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients (18 men, 42 women; age, > or =50 y) with moderate-to-severe pain associated with OA of the knee. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Five weekly intra-articular hyaluronate injections (5-HYL); (2) 3 weekly intra-articular hyaluronate injections (3-HYL); or (3) a combination of an HEP with 3 weekly intra-articular hyaluronate injections (3-HYL+HEP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was a 100-mm visual analog scale for pain after a 50-foot walk (15.24 m). Secondary measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales. RESULTS: The 3-HYL+HEP group had significantly faster onset of pain relief compared with the 3-HYL (P<.01) and 5-HYL groups (P=.01). All groups showed a mean symptomatic improvement from baseline (reduction in baseline pain at 3 mo was 59%, 49%, and 48% for the 3-HYL+HEP, 3-HYL, and 5-HYL groups, respectively) that was clinically and statistically significant. There were no between-group differences in the incidence or nature of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of hyaluronate injections with HEP should be considered for management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with knee OA.

Injections in patients with osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal disorders: use of synthetic injection models for teaching physiatry residents.

This study examined whether resident injection skills could be enhanced using synthetic injection models. A total of 30 physiatry residents underwent written and injection-model pretesting and posttesting. After randomization into injection-model and control groups, the experimental group trained by watching an instructional videotape and by using models that gave visual feedback on injection accuracy, whereas the control group studied technical aspects of injections. Immediately after patient injections, a blinded attending graded residents on the required level of verbal or manual assistance. The experimental group performed significantly better during patient injections as per first injection data (i.e., the scores obtained from performing a procedure for the first time on each particular body region; P = 0.013), total injection data (i.e., the mean scores obtained from performing all procedures on each particular body region; P = 0.017), and postrotation practical testing (P < 0.007) but not for didactic knowledge (postrotation written testing; P < 0.039). Data analysis by body region showed significant benefit only for occasionally performed patient injection procedures. The benefit was most evident in less experienced residents. Injection-model accuracy testing correlated with actual patient injections, both for first injections into each major body region (r = 0.52, P = 0.005) and for all injections (r = 0.55, P = 0.003). Consideration should be given for incorporating injection-model training into residency education, especially for residents with less injection experience and for occasionally performed procedures. The overall correlation between model practical testing and subsequent patient injection performance suggests that models can measure injection competence.