Abstract
Background
The Association of American Medical Colleges has identified the humanities as fundamental to medical education across all specialties. Evidence from undergraduate medical education (UME) demonstrates the humanities' positive impacts on outcomes that could be relevant to patient care and trainee well‐being in emergency medicine (EM) residency training. However, less is known about the humanities' role in graduate medical education (GME).
Objectives
The objectives were to describe EM residents' self‐reported exposure to the humanities and its relationship with their empathy, tolerance of ambiguity, and patient‐centeredness, and to assess their attitudes toward the humanities in GME.
Methods
This cross‐sectional survey‐based study was conducted at six U.S. EM residency programs in 2018–2019. Quantitative analyses included linear regressions testing for trends between humanities exposures and outcomes, adjusted for sex, year in training, and clustering within programs; adjunct analysis of free‐text responses was performed using an exploratory constructivist approach to identify themes about views on the humanities' role in medicine.
Results
Response rate was 54.8% (153/279). A total of 65% of respondents were male and 28.1% of respondents had a preceding humanities degree. Preceding humanities degree and current self‐reported humanities exposure were positively associated with performance on empathy subscales (p = 0.02). Seventy‐five percent (n = 114) of respondents agreed humanities are important in GME; free‐text responses revealed perceived positive impacts of humanities on generating well‐rounded clinicians and enhancing patient care.
Conclusions
Engagement with the humanities may be associated with empathy among EM residents. Although the magnitude of associations was smaller than that seen in UME, this study demonstrates resident interest in humanities and suggests that extracurricular engagement with the humanities may be insufficient to prolong positive impacts seen in UME. Further research is needed to explore how to sustain these benefits through integration or addition of the humanities in existing GME curricula.
INTRODUCTION
A growing body of evidence suggests the humanities may positively impact health professions learners across multiple domains, including skills‐based outcomes (e.g., observation), relational outcomes (e.g., empathy, communication), and transformational outcomes (e.g., professional identity formation, resilience). 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) have identified the humanities as fundamental to medical education across the training continuum. 4 , 5
Though the humanities are gaining some traction within emergency medicine (EM), humanities‐based curricula specifically targeting EM residents are largely lacking. 6 While over 70% of North American medical schools offer humanities‐based curricula in undergraduate medical education (UME), only 17% of arts and humanities programming target residents. Less is known about the prevalence and impact of the humanities in graduate medical education (GME), including in EM. 3 , 4 , 7
Studies in UME have demonstrated correlations between humanities exposure and positive medical student attributes, including empathy, tolerance of ambiguity (TA), and communication. 4 The impacts of humanities‐based curricula seen in UME, if continued into GME, could have even greater salience for residents providing clinical care, since attributes such as empathy and TA are associated with residents' resilience and the quality of care patients receive. 8 , 9 , 10 EM residents frequently encounter threats to empathy and patient‐centeredness due to burnout and compassion fatigue and routinely contend with ambiguity, in the form of “undifferentiated” patients and high‐stakes decision making with limited information. 11 , 12 , 13 As such, the enhancement of trainees' TA, empathy, and patient‐centered care through the humanities could represent an important benefit to EM residents' training. Additionally, the core functions of the humanities in medical education identified by a recent scoping review, including perspective taking, personal insight, and social advocacy, correspond directly with specific elements of the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) EM milestones, including understanding patients' perspectives (ICS1), self‐awareness and reflection (ICS1, PROF3), and patient and community advocacy (SBP3, SBP4). 14 , 15 Moreover, the humanities have the potential to be valuable pedagogical adjuncts for specific components of (i) the EM Model of Practice, such as those listed in “Other Core Competencies for the Practice of Emergency Medicine” (including well‐being and resilience, ethical principles, and social determinants of health) and (ii) the ACGME Common Program Requirements, including adherence to ethical requirements, respect and responsiveness to diverse patient populations, ability to recognize and develop a plan for one's own personal and professional well‐being, communication, and advocacy. 16 , 17 Despite these potential benefits and occupational considerations, to the best of our knowledge, there are no multisite studies that have investigated residents' engagement with the humanities in EM or how it might relate to favorable outcomes. Given the lack of formal humanities curricula across EM residencies, we elected to explore residents' self‐reported engagement with the humanities as a surrogate measure for humanities exposure. Specifically, the goals of our multi‐site study were to (i) assess self‐reported engagement with the humanities amongst EM residents in six programs across the United States and examine whether exposure to the humanities related to EM residents' empathy, TA, and patient‐centeredness and (ii) capture EM residents' attitudes towards the humanities in medical education.
METHODS
Study design, setting, and population
This was a cross‐sectional survey‐based study of EM residents at six ACGME‐accredited EM residency programs in 2018–2019 in the Northeast, Mid‐Atlantic, Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest United States. Two programs were 4‐year programs; the remainder were 3‐year programs. Programs were selected to represent both geographic and programmatic diversity to increase generalizability. Surveys were conducted over an 8‐month period and were administered electronically at four sites, on paper at one site, and a mix of on paper and online at another. A hybrid collection technique was utilized to increase survey completion rates and to make accessing the survey easiest for the learners being surveyed at their respective institutions. All residents at each site were eligible for inclusion.
Study measures and outcomes
The survey was based on a previous study that developed a questionnaire to measure medical students' self‐reported exposure to humanities, and content validity was assessed by a team of EM clinician‐educators with experience in humanities education and assessment and evaluation 1 (Supplemental Material).
This anonymous survey collected information on basic demographics and preceding training in the humanities. The survey defined humanities as the study of human society and culture, including, but not limited to, languages, literature, art, music, philosophy, history and geography, religion, and ethics. 18 Given the absence of standardized humanities curricula in EM residency education, we measured humanities exposure via residents' self‐reported engagement with humanities using a scale modeled on Mangione et al. 1 Participants were asked how often they participated in 10 humanities‐related activities on a 7‐point scale of frequency (ranging from 1 [never] to 7 [daily]), with subsequent calculation of a humanities exposure score with a possible range of 10 to 70.
TA was assessed using Geller's 7‐item scale, which has been applied in other studies of health care professionals. 19 , 20 , 21 Response options were provided on a 6‐point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” with no neutral option. Scores were reported as scale totals (possible range of 7–42). Higher scores reflected greater TA.
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) questionnaire, which characterizes empathy as a multidimensional cognitive and affective construct, was used to evaluate empathy. 22 The IRI has 28 items with 5‐point Likert scale response options ranging from “does not describe me well” to “describes me very well.” 23 Each response was scaled from 0 to 4. The IRI encompasses four factors of seven items each: perspective taking (ability to spontaneously see others' perspectives), fantasy (ability to put oneself in the situation of another), empathic concern (“other‐oriented” feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others), and personal distress (“self‐oriented” negative personal response to others' distress). Domain scores were reported as summed totals of each item's score. Higher scores reflected greater perspective‐taking ability, ability to put oneself in the situation of others, empathic concern, and personal distress, respectively.
Patient‐centeredness was assessed via the Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS), an 18‐item scale widely used in medical education and applied cross‐culturally. Response options consisted of a 6‐point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with no neutral option. Scores were reported as item‐means scaled 1–6. Higher scores reflected greater patient‐centeredness. 24 , 25 , 26 Attitudes about the inclusion of humanities in medical education were measured on 5‐point Likert scales, as well as open‐ended questioning.
Data analysis
Quantitative
We calculated descriptive statistics and performed bivariate analyses with parametric and nonparametric tests. Simple linear regressions were used to test for trends between self‐reported humanities exposure and performance on self‐reported measures. For each simple linear regression, linear regressions that adjusted for individual sex and year in training were performed, accounting for clustering within programs. Stata 13 (Stata Statistical Software, Release 13, 2013) was used for data analysis.
Adjunct analysis
Free‐text responses to the open‐ended question on the role of the humanities in medicine were coded iteratively by two study team members (ASO and KSB) with a third (NI) available for resolution of discrepancies. This was an adjunct analysis to supplement quantitative survey findings, as recommended by LaDonna et al. 27 An exploratory approach was utilized, applying a constructivist paradigm to identify common themes in residents' perceptions of the humanities' role in medicine. Responses were also systematically coded for valence (positive or negative). Each site's institutional review board deemed the study protocol exempt.
RESULTS
The survey response rate was 54.8% (153/279; Table 1). Participants were represented across all years in training with relatively few PGY‐4 respondents given fewer participating 4‐year programs. A total of 28.1% of respondents (n = 43) reported a preceding humanities degree. A total of 65% of respondents were male.
TABLE 1.
Characteristics of 153 EM residents from six programs surveyed on humanities exposure, patient‐centeredness, TA, and empathy in 2018–2019
| PGY | Gender | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | p‐value a | Male | Female b | p‐value c | |
| Respondents | 153 (100) | 57 (37) | 41 (27) | 46 (30) | 9 (6) | N/A | 99 (65) | 53 (35) | N/A |
| Humanities exposure scale total | 33.4 (±6.9) | 33.8 (±6.9) | 31.9 (±7.1) | 34.2 (±7) | 32.9 (±6.1) | 0.468 | 32.8 (±7) | 34.4 (±6.8) | 0.210 |
| Patient‐centeredness (PPOS) | |||||||||
| Overall | 4.5 (±0.5) | 4.5 (±0.4) | 4.5 (±0.5) | 4.4 (±0.5) | 4.7 (±0.5) | 0.304 | 4.4 (±0.5) | 4.6 (±0.5) | 0.042 |
| Sharing | 4.4 (±0.6) | 4.4 (±0.6) | 4.5 (±0.7) | 4.3 (±0.6) | 4.5 (±0.5) | 0.414 | 4.3 (±0.6) | 4.5 (±0.7) | 0.025 |
| Caring | 4.6 (±0.5) | 4.7 (±0.5) | 4.5 (±0.5) | 4.5 (±0.5) | 4.8 (±0.6) | 0.092 | 4.6 (±0.5) | 4.7 (±0.5) | 0.132 |
| TA | 25.8 (±6.7) | 25.7 (±6.9) | 26.1 (±6.8) | 25.2 (±6.6) | 26.8 (±6.3) | 0.929 | 25.6 (±6.7) | 26.0 (±6.8) | 0.711 |
| Empathy (IRI) | |||||||||
| Perspective taking | 20.1 (±4.5) | 20.7 (±4.4) | 19.5 (±5.6) | 20.2 (±3.6) | 18.1 (±5.1) | 0.384 | 20.1 (±4.3) | 20.2 (±5.0) | 0.966 |
| Fantasy | 17.0 (±5.6) | 17.8 (±5.1) | 17.1 (±6.4) | 15.8 (±5.9) | 16.1 (±4.0) | 0.420 | 15.8 (±5.4) | 19.2 (±5.4) | 0.001 |
| Empathic concern | 20.1 (±4.3) | 20.5 (±4.2) | 20.3 (±5.4) | 19.6 (±3.9) | 19.9 (±2.8) | 0.827 | 19.0 (±4.3) | 22.2 (±3.7) | <0.001 |
| Personal distress | 6.5 (±4.1) | 6.3 (±3.5) | 6.4 (±4.0) | 6.5 (±4.4) | 8.5 (±6.4) | 0.556 | 6.6 (±4.3) | 6.4 (±3.6) | 0.744 |
Note: Data are reported as n (%) or mean (±SD). Humanities scale scored as summed total of 10 items with 7‐point response options based on increasing frequency of engagement, for a range of 10–70. PPOS totals and domain are means/item, range of 1–6. TA is total for scale, range 7–42. IRI is reported as sum of items in scale with range of 0–28 for each domain.
Abbreviations: IRI, Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PPOS, Patient–Practitioner Orientation Scale; TA, tolerance for ambiguity.
p‐values correspond to ANOVA test comparing PGY means.
Data for sex do not add up to 153 due to missing data.
p‐values correspond to t‐test comparing means for males and females.
Residents' self‐reported humanities exposure
The mean current humanities exposure score for respondents was 33.4 (range 10–70; Table 1). There were no significant differences between programs, year in training, or gender in self‐reported exposure to the humanities. Participants with previous humanities training had increased current self‐reported humanities exposure during residency (mean ± SD 36.6 ± 5.75 vs. 32.2 ± 7.00; p < 0.01]).
There was no significant difference between year in training in performance on TA, IRI, and PPOS scales. Respondents who identified as female had higher mean scores on patient‐centeredness and empathy measures. (Table 1).
Frequency of current exposure to specific humanities‐related activities is detailed in Table 2. Almost all respondents reported listening to music at least once a month and more than half read for pleasure at least once a month. While up to 70% reported attending a concert or visiting a museum at least once a year, active participation in the creation of art was reported less frequently.
TABLE 2.
Frequencies of use of each type of humanities across all respondents
| Never or every few years | Once a year to every few months | Monthly or more | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Listen to music | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.3) | 149 (98.7) |
| Read for pleasure | 15 (10.0) | 51 (34.0) | 84 (56.0) |
| Sing or play instrument | 84 (56.8) | 28 (18.9) | 36 (24.3) |
| Attend concerts | 26 (17.3) | 102 (68.0) | 22 (14.7) |
| Visit museums or galleries | 24 (16.0) | 105 (70.0) | 21 (14.0) |
| Write for pleasure | 92 (60.9) | 41 (27.2) | 18 (11.9) |
| Paint, draw, sculpt, craft, etc. | 91 (60.3) | 43 (28.5) | 17 (11.3) |
| Attend theater/visual arts performances | 57 (37.8) | 86 (57.0) | 8 (5.3) |
| Attend talks/lectures about arts, literature, ethics, etc. | 74 (49.3) | 70 (46.7) | 6 (4.0) |
| Perform in theater or visual arts performances | 137 (91.3) | 10 (6.7) | 3 (2.0) |
Note: Data are reported as n (%).
Humanities exposure and empathy, TA, and patient‐centeredness
After adjusting for year in training, gender, and clustering within programs, participants with preceding degrees in a humanities discipline scored lower on the IRI personal distress subscale, which measures “self‐oriented” feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings (mean ± SD 5.3 ± 3.1 vs. 7.0 ± 4.3; p = 0.02). Current humanities exposure was associated with increased scores on the IRI fantasy subscale, which represents the ability to put oneself in others' shoes (Table 3). No other attributes were significantly associated with preceding or current exposure to humanities.
TABLE 3.
Patient‐centeredness, TA, and empathy by quartile of humanities scale totals
| Quartile | p‐value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Unadjusted a | Adjusted b | |
| Humanities scale total | 24.6 (±2.9) | 31.0 (±1.5) | 36.1 (±1.8) | 42.9 (±3.1) | N/A | N/A |
| PPOS | ||||||
| Overall | 4.4 (±0.4) | 4.5 (±0.4) | 4.6 (±0.5) | 4.5 (±0.6) | 0.362 | 0.458 |
| Sharing | 4.2 (±0.5) | 4.4 (±0.5) | 4.5 (±0.7) | 4.3 (±0.7) | 0.638 | 0.924 |
| Caring | 4.5 (±0.5) | 4.6 (±0.5) | 4.7 (±0.5) | 4.6 (±0.5) | 0.290 | 0.088 |
| Tolerance for ambiguity | 23.6 (±7.0) | 25.5 (±6.3) | 26.3 (±6.4) | 27.7 (±6.6) | 0.044 | 0.131 |
| IRI | ||||||
| Perspective taking | 18.5 (±4.3) | 21.4 (±4.5) | 21.4 (±4.4) | 19.2 (±4.6) | 0.399 | 0.452 |
| Fantasy | 14.3 (±5.6) | 17.6 (±5.5) | 18.8 (±5.1) | 17.2 (±5.9) | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Empathic concern | 19.4 (±5.1) | 20.6 (±4.5) | 20.1 (±4.5) | 20.7 (±3.5) | 0.217 | 0.422 |
| Personal distress | 7.5 (±4.4) | 5.1 (±3.5) | 6.3 (±4.1) | 6.8 (±4.3) | 0.627 | 0.703 |
Note: Data are reported as mean (±SD). Humanities scale scored as summed total of 10 items with 7‐point response options based on increasing frequency of engagement, for a range of 10–70. PPOS totals and domain are means/item, range of 1–6. TA is total for scale, range 7–42. IRI is reported as sum of items in scale with range of 0–28 for each domain.
Abbreviations: IRI, Interpersonal Reactivity Index; PPOS, Patient‐Practitioner Orientation Scale; TA, tolerance for ambiguity.
p‐values correspond to simple linear regression.
p‐values correspond to multiple regressions that adjust for individual residency year and sex and account for clustering within programs.
Role of the humanities in medicine and medical education
Respondents perceived the humanities to be important across all levels of medical education, with 74.5% (n = 114) of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that humanities have an important role in UME, 64.9% (n = 98) for GME, and 60.3% (n = 91) for continuing faculty development. Thirty respondents (19.6%) provided free‐text responses on their thoughts on the role of the humanities in medicine. Similar to all respondents, 39% of this subset identified as female and 35% reported previous humanities training, with a similar distribution of year in training (45% PGY‐1, 23% PGY‐‐2, 29% PG‐Y3, and 3% PGY4). Themes and representative quotes are described in Table 4. Most (28/30, 93%) expressed positive views on the humanities' role in medicine; benefits described included (i) generating more well‐rounded physicians, (ii) humanizing patients and physicians, (iii) positive impacts on patient care and communication, and (iv) personal enrichment. Some advocated for a larger role for the humanities within medical education. Barriers noted included lack of time or competing responsibilities in residency, in contrast to increased availability of humanities curricula in UME. Even among those who expressed positive views of humanities in medicine, many respondents conceptualized the humanities as in some way external to or separate from medical education or practice as evidenced by descriptions of it being a link to the world “outside of medicine” or as “a counterbalance to our more scientific focus as doctors.”
TABLE 4.
Common themes and representative quotations from adjunct analysis of written responses on role of humanities in medicine
| Themes/subthemes | Representative quotations |
|---|---|
| Benefits to residents | |
| Resident well‐being or enjoyment |
“I'm aware of a number of benefits—from mental health and wellness perspectives.” “Life/medicine would have very little meaning if not for the pleasure that the humanities provide us.” |
| Helps be more well‐rounded | “Humanities are important in order to be a well‐rounded human.” |
| Benefits to clinical practice | |
| Humanizing patients and/or physicians |
“Sometimes physicians forget that there is a world outside of medicine and that there is more to the human experience than their chronic medical conditions.” “I think they help … allow us to feel like real humans, and in that way they are critical.” |
| Improved patient care and communication |
“I think this is a regrettably neglected part of medicine that I think would make people better caretakers.” “Humanities exposure helps us to communicate with and understand our patients better.” |
| Compassion | “Humanities are incredibly important and I believe play a crucial role in shaping a … compassionate physician.” |
| Understanding impacts of culture on health | “The humanities provide perspectives on society and culture's view of our body and health. It is good to understand the background and stay in touch with these perspectives.” |
| Humanities in medical education | |
| Should have larger role in GME |
“I think this is a sorely neglected field in medicine.” “Would love to have more of this incorporated in our training.” “My medical school had many rich humanities experiences available and I miss that all the time in residency.” |
| External to science in medicine | “Some humanities exposure in life is enjoyable, in addition to providing a counterbalance to our more scientific focus as doctors.” |
| Obstacles to inclusion | “With the increasing burden of responsibilities on physicians, additional training or requirements are always challenging to address.” |
Abbreviation: GME, graduate medical education.
DISCUSSION
This multisite study of EM residents describes existing patterns of resident engagement with humanities, examines correlations between self‐reported humanities exposure and specific resident attributes, and indicates largely positive resident attitudes toward inclusion of humanities in GME. Our results demonstrate that preceding humanities training and current humanities exposure are both associated with higher performance on empathy subscales, though no other associations were noted.
Empathy is an important attribute for physicians. Clinician empathy is associated with improved patient satisfaction and increased adherence to treatment, and trainee empathy has the potential to directly impact care and resident well‐being, resilience, and burnout. 8 , 10 , 28 However, empathy can be a challenging skill to teach or facilitate. Given the current intersecting crises of COVID‐19 and social upheaval, those working in “safety‐net” settings such as emergency departments are particularly at risk for compassion fatigue and burnout, and our results suggest that the humanities could be explored further as a means by which to foster resilience and improved patient care through empathic connection. 28
Reading and listening to music were the most frequently reported modalities of self‐reported engagement with humanities. Streaming music platforms and availability of reading materials on mobile devices likely make activities such as reading or listening to music more accessible to residents with demanding schedules. While it is premature to recommend any specific modality that would make the humanities more accessible in GME, and while the impacts of the humanities in GME are not fully established, EM educators seeking to explore humanities‐based education could consider incorporating music into their curricula, given the frequency of engagement with music reported by residents. Music has, for instance, been applied toward engaging medical trainees in discussions of psychiatric illness. 29 , 30 Reading‐ and writing‐based sessions, often grounded in narrative medicine, have been used to inspire reflective practice, enhancement of bedside patient discussions, or engagement with patient experiences. 31 , 32 , 33 Though fewer respondents reported self‐initiated visual arts engagement, there are also reports in the literature of the feasibility of visual arts–based GME curricula, including museum visits, engagement with community art, and multimedia longitudinal curricula applied toward learning objectives as diverse as improving observation skills, resilience, and bias awareness. 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 Further research is necessary to understand which practices may be most beneficial in fostering empathy or other potential benefits of humanities engagement.
Respondents expressed positive attitudes toward the role of the humanities in medicine and medical education, with adjunct analysis preliminarily suggesting perceived impacts on personal well‐being, compassionate practice, interprofessional communication, and patient care. Respondents also identified the humanities as a link to social and cultural concepts that impact health. Indeed, humanities‐based approaches have been applied in health professions curricula addressing bias, health equity, and social determinants of health. As educators move to meet the urgent need to address issues of social inequity in health, humanities‐based approaches may also be relevant to other topics that are challenging to teach, including antiracism and inclusivity. 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40
While additional research is needed into the integration of the humanities into GME, many GME faculty members, understandably, might feel ill‐equipped to integrate humanities into residency curricula; ideally, such activities should be pursued by those with formal training in the humanities and its pedagogical frameworks. 4 Recognizing that not all medical educators will have such training, this presents an opportunity for collaboration. Currently, there are 60 partnerships between museums and medical schools that provide collaborative arts‐based educational programming for medical students. 41 There has been exponential growth in health humanities programs offered by undergraduate institutions, and many medical schools feature centers or institutions for the medical humanities, which also offer nexuses for partnership in developing curricula. 42 Curricular repositories and training programs also exist. 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47
Our results do not reveal the magnitude of associations that might have been expected based on findings in UME. This may be due to relatively limited extracurricular engagement with humanities in GME as a result of competing time pressures and responsibilities during residency as well as the lack of formal humanities curricula in EM residency training. Our study suggests that extracurricular self‐initiated engagement with humanities during residency may be insufficient to prolong positive impacts seen from formal humanities curricula among medical students, and residents may not experience the same degree of benefit, potentially as a factor of dose or lack of structured engagement. Medical students and residents also represent different populations of learners. As such, the attributes studied may not evolve with similar trajectories. For instance, TA has been shown to decrease as medical students gain more training, but studies of residents demonstrate increased TA with additional clinical training. 48 Empathy, TA, and patient‐centeredness also bear a complex relationship with other attributes, such as moral injury and burnout, which residents face at higher levels than medical students. 49 , 50 As such, a “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach may be inadequate. Future research focused on understanding how best to leverage the humanities in EM residency training will be helpful in illuminating these critical issues.
LIMITATIONS
Our study was subject to limitations common to survey‐based research. While we believe our survey response rate of greater than 50% is relatively robust, we did not capture all eligible respondents, subjecting our data to nonresponse, selection, and self‐perception bias. Our survey instrument, though based on published work in UME, may not have asked participants about the entire scope of activities that could fall under the umbrella of the humanities. A total of 28.1% of our respondents reported preceding experience in the humanities. Though higher than the 13% of medical school matriculants with undergraduate humanities majors, “preceding experience” in our study also additionally captured those with undergraduate minors or graduate degrees. 51 Though smaller in number, those who provided free‐text comments were reflective of the distribution of the larger sample in terms of training year, gender, and preceding humanities training. There are also limitations to the qualitative analysis of free‐text survey responses; however, given that there are little existing data on GME learners' attitudes toward the humanities, we believe the free‐text responses represented new, unique data that may inform future directions of inquiry on an infrequently explored topic. 27 Additionally, we sampled 3‐ and 4‐year programs at academic and community sites across a variety of locations with a gender distribution and training duration similar to the broader EM residency population, but generalizability to all EM programs may be limited. Given the cross‐sectional study design, we were only able to infer association and not causation. The relationship and directionality of the relationship between humanities exposure and specific resident attributes represents an important future direction of study; it is, for instance, possible that there are certain preexisting personal attributes that generate a predilection for engaging in the humanities. However, since there are no consistent humanities curricula across EM residencies, a cross‐sectional survey represented the most feasible preliminary approach to examining relationships between humanities and specific resident attributes. Future research is needed to investigate the mechanisms by which humanities exposure may influence these attributes, the duration of impacts, and what impacts translate to patient care.
CONCLUSION
Though the magnitude of associations was smaller than that seen among medical students, this multisite study of emergency medicine residents demonstrates resident interest in the humanities in medical education and an association between humanities exposure and empathy. Additionally, residents perceived the humanities as important to generating well‐rounded clinicians and improving patient care. Implementation and evaluation of humanities curricula tailored to the unique needs of emergency medicine residents may be needed to better understand how to translate the benefits of the humanities from undergraduate medical education to emergency medicine residency training.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Kamna S. Balhara, Adriana S. Olson, Linda Regan, and EMERA made substantial contributions to concept and design. Kamna S. Balhara, Sanjay Mohan, Adriana S. Olson, EMERA and Linda Regan made substantial contributions to acquisition of the data. Kamna S. Balhara, Korie L. Zink, Sanjay Mohan, Nathan Irvin, Adriana S. Olson, Sean Tackett, and Linda Regan made substantial contributions to analysis and interpretation of the data. Kamna S. Balhara, Korie L. Zink, Sanjay Mohan, Sean Tackett, and Nathan Irvin made substantial contributions to drafting of the manuscript. All authors contributed to critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Nathan Irvin and Sean Tackett provided statistical expertise.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Korie L. Zink, Sanjay Mohan, and Linda Regan report no conflicts of interests. Kamna S. Balhara reports grant funding received by her institution from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Josiah H. Macy Foundation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and EMF/CORD to conduct investigator‐initiated research on the humanities and health equity, antiracism and the humanities, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and patient safety. Nathan Irvin reports grant funding received by his institution from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Josiah H. Macy Foundation, and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation to conduct investigator‐initiated research on the humanities and health equity, anti‐racism and the humanities, and community trauma response. Adriana S. Olson reports grant funding received by her institution from EMF/CORD to conduct investigator‐initiated research on simulation and patient safety. Sean Tackett reports grant money to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to conduct research conceived and written by Sean Tackett from National Institutes of Health and Kern Institute and contract funding from Osmosis for investigator‐initiated research.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical approval was granted by the institutional review board at each participating institution.
Supporting information
Appendix S1:
Balhara KS, Irvin N, Zink KL, et al.. “A sorely neglected field”: A multisite study of self‐reported humanities exposure among emergency medicine residents. AEM Educ Train. 2022;6:e10772. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10772
Was scheduled to be presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, May 2020, though not presented due to COVID‐19 pandemic.
Supervising Editor: Dr. Stephen Cico.
REFERENCES
- 1. Mangione S, Chakraborti C, Staltari G, et al. Medical students' exposure to the humanities correlates with positive personal qualities and reduced burnout: a multi‐institutional U.S. survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(5):628‐634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Dennhardt S, Apramian T, Lingard L, Torabi N, Arntfield S. Rethinking research in the medical humanities: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of quantitative outcome studies. Med Educ. 2016;50(3):285‐299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ousager J, Johannessen H. Humanities in undergraduate medical education: a literature review. Acad Med. 2010;85(6):988‐998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Howley L, Gaufberg E, King B. The Fundamental Role of the Arts and Humanities in Medical Education. AAMC; 2020. [Google Scholar]
- 5. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . The integration of the humanities and arts with sciences, engineering, and medicine in higher education: Branches from the same tree. National Academies Press; 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. American College of Emergency Physicians: Medical Humanities Section. Accessed March 2021. https://www.acep.org/humanities/ [Google Scholar]
- 7. Klugman CM. Medical humanities teaching in North American allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. J Med Humanit. 2018;39(4):473‐481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Wolfshohl JA, Bradley K, Bell C, et al. Association between empathy and burnout among emergency medicine physicians. J Clin Med Res. 2019;11(7):532‐538. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Strout TD, Hillen M, Gutheil C, et al. Tolerance of uncertainty: a systematic review of health and healthcare‐related outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(9):1518‐1537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Wang H, Kline JA, Jackson BE, et al. Association between emergency physician self‐reported empathy and patient satisfaction. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0204113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Bellolio MF, Cabrera D, Sadosty AT, et al. Compassion fatigue is similar in emergency medicine residents compared to other medical and surgical specialties. West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(6):629‐635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Gorgas DL, Greenberger S, Bahner DP, Way DP. Teaching emotional intelligence: a control group study of a brief educational intervention for emergency medicine residents. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(6):899‐906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Platts‐Mills TF, Nagurney JM, Melnick ER. Tolerance of uncertainty and the practice of emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75(6):715‐720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Emergency Medicine Milestones. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. July 1, 2021. Accessed May 30, 2021. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/EmergencyMedicineMilestones2.0.pdf?ver=2021‐02‐24‐104718‐043
- 15. Moniz T, Golafshani M, Gaspar CM, et al. The prism model: advancing a theory of practice for arts and humanities in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2021;10:207‐214. doi: 10.1007/s40037-021-00661-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. 2019 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine. American Board of Emergency Medicine . Accessed May 12, 2022. https://www.abem.org/public/docs/default‐source/default‐document‐library/2019‐em‐model_website.pdf?sfvrsn=d75fcdf4_2
- 17. Common Program Requirements (Residency). Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. February 3, 2020. Accessed May 12, 2022. https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRResidency2021.pdf
- 18. About the National Endowment for the Humanities. National Endowment for the Humanities. Accessed February 8, 2018. https://www.neh.gov/about
- 19. Geller G, Tambor ES, Chase GA, Holtzman NA. Measuring physicians' tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Med Care. 1993;31(11):989‐1001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Iannello P, Mottini A, Tirelli S, Riva S, Antonietti A. Ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance, need for cognition, and their association with stress. A study among Italian practicing physicians. Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1270009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Caulfield M, Andolsek K, Grbic D, Roskovensky L. Ambiguity tolerance of students matriculating to U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2014;89(11):1526‐1532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Davis M. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44(1):113‐126. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Konrath S. Critical synthesis package: interpersonal reactivity index (IRI). MedEdPORTAL. 2013. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.9596 [DOI]
- 24. Krupat E, Hiam CM, Fleming MZ, Freeman P. Patient‐centeredness and its correlates among first year medical students. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1999;29(3):347‐356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Shaw WS, Woiszwillo MJ, Krupat E. Further validation of the patient‐practitioner orientation scale (PPOS) from recorded visits for back pain. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(2):288‐291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Trapp S, Stern M. Critical synthesis package: patient‐practitioner orientation scale (PPOS). MedEdPORTAL. 2013. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.9501 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27. LaDonna KA, Taylor T, Lingard L. Why open‐ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):347‐349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kerasidou A, Horn R. Making space for empathy: supporting doctors in the emotional labour of clinical care. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Newell GC, Hanes DJ. Listening to music: the case for its use in teaching medical humanism. Acad Med. 2003;78(7):714‐719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Goldenberg MN. Didactic Broadway: using musical theater in psychiatric education. Acad Psychiatry. 2019;43(6):621‐623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Winkel AF, Hermann N, Graham MJ, Ratan RB. No time to think: making room for reflection in obstetrics and gynecology residency. J Grad Med Educ. 2010;2(4):610‐615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Roberts B, Mehta AK, McWhirter M, Dy SM, Wright SM, Wu DS. Narrative approach to goals of care discussions: adapting the 3‐Act model training to an online format. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;62(1):197‐201. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Chou JC, Schepel IRM, Vo AT, Kapetanovic S, Schaff PB. Patient co‐participation in narrative medicine curricula as a means of engaging patients as partners in healthcare: a pilot study involving medical students and patients living with HIV. J Med Humanit. 2021;42:641‐657. doi: 10.1007/s10912-019-09604-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Dalia Y, Milam EC, Rieder EA. Art in medical education: a review. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12(6):686‐695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Klugman CM, Peel J, Beckmann‐Mendez D. Art rounds: teaching interprofessional students visual thinking strategies at one school. Acad Med. 2011;86(10):1266‐1271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Zeidan A, Tiballi A, Woodward M, Di Bartolo IM. Targeting implicit bias in medicine: lessons from art and archaeology. West J Emerg Med. 2019;21(1):1‐3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Marr B, Mickey SH, Blythe SG, Baruch J. The weight of pain: what does a 10 on the pain scale mean? An innovative use of art in medical education to enhance pain management. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019;57(6):1182‐1187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Balhara KS, Irvin N. A community mural tour: facilitating experiential learning about social determinants of health. West J Emerg Med. 2020;22(1):60‐62. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2020.9.48738 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Balhara K, Irvin N, Regan L. Teaching outside the box: a health humanities‐based curriculum to teach social determinants of health. West J Emerg Med. 2020;21:S59. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Godley BA, Dayal D, Manekin E, Estroff SE. Toward an anti‐racist curriculum: incorporating art into medical education to improve empathy and structural competency. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520965246. doi: 10.1177/2382120520965246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Pitman B. Art Museum and Medical School Partnerships. Program Descriptions. August 2020. Accessed September 2020. https://arthistory.utdallas.edu/medicine/resources/2020%20ART%20AND%20MED%20PROGRAM%20DESCRIPTIONS.pdf
- 42. Lamb EG, Berry SL, Jones T. Health Humanities Baccalaureate Programs in the U.S. 2020. Accessed March 2021. https://case.edu/medicine/bioethics/sites/case.edu.bioethics/files/2020‐03/Health%20Humanities%20Report%202020.pdf
- 43. Getting Started Guide Part 1: Select Activities for Integrating the Arts and Humanities into Medical Education. Association of American Medical Colleges. C2022 Accessed March 2021. https://www.aamc.org/what‐we‐do/mission‐areas/medical‐education/getting‐started‐activities
- 44. Literature Arts Medicine Database. New York University. Accessed July 1, 2018. https://medhum.med.nyu.edu/
- 45. Narrative Medicine. Columbia University. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://summer.sps.columbia.edu/home/narrative‐medicine?gclid=Cj0KCQjwpdqDBhCSARIsAEUJ0hNO8U0PAUbkSHLNDvBVfAxeHsAI02VfG7g3aDC54k56ynCkamwkCS4aAgLyEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
- 46. Art Museum‐Based Health Professions Education Fellowship. Accessed May 1, 2019. https://www.harvardmacy.org/index.php/hmi‐courses/museum‐fellowship‐course [Google Scholar]
- 47. Supporting Humanities‐Based Anti‐Racism Education for Health Professionals. ShareTools. Accessed March 1, 2022. www.sharetools.org
- 48. Han PK, Schupack D, Daggett S, Holt CT, Strout TD. Temporal changes in tolerance of uncertainty among medical students: insights from an exploratory study. Med Educ. 2015;20:28285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Dyrbye L, Shanafelt T. A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Med Educ. 2016;50:132‐149. doi: 10.1111/medu.12927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Dyrbye LN, West CP, Satele D, et al. Burnout Among U.S. medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Acad Med. 2014;89:443‐451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Association of American Medical Colleges . 2020 FACTS: Applicants and Matriculants Data. Accessed April 1, 2021. https://www.aamc.org/data‐reports/students‐residents/interactive‐data/2020‐facts‐applicants‐and‐matriculants‐data
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Appendix S1: