A mixed-methods SWOT analysis of a medical student Balint group programme

Abstract

Background

Balint groups use case-based discussions to explore, reflect on, and enhance the clinician-patient relationship. They facilitate the development of empathy and reflective practice and reduce burnout. This study aimed to explore how the benefits of a traditional Balint group format can be accessed and optimised for medical students during a one-year pilot programme.

Methods

Eight medical student Balint groups ran for six weeks during 2022–2023, with 90 students participating. Themes were identified from student feedback using qualitative content analysis. Group leaders kept reflective session notes and used these alongside student feedback to undertake a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis.

Results

Strengths of the programme were emotional containment, learning to reflect, and community identity. Weaknesses were themed as strange situations, dragging along, and facilitator as an object. Opportunities were identified in expanding the scope and sharpening focus. Psychological defences and the engagement dilemma threatened the future success of the Balint group programme.

Discussion

Medical student Balint groups provide a unique space to combine learning and emotional support with personal, professional and community development. However, the traditional Balint group format may need adapting to be widely accessible to undergraduate learners. Sustainably integrating Balint groups into the medical school curriculum requires ongoing engagement work at both an individual and organisational level.

Keywords:

• Medical education research
• management medicine
• profession ethics/attitudes
• learning outcomes professionalism
• learning outcomes small group
• teaching & learning

Acknowledgements

With many thanks to Dr Pat Tate for generously sharing her time and experience and patiently providing leadership supervision.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Notes on contributors

Robyn McCarron

Robyn McCarron, MA, MB, BChir, MRCPsych, PGCert ClinEd, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

James M. FitzGerald

James M. FitzGerald, BSc., MBBS, MSc., MPH, ADHP, DHP, MRCPsych, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge.

Peter Swann

Peter Swann, BA, BMBCh, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge.

Sharon Yang

Sharon Yang, MA, MSci, MB, BChir, MRCPsych, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

Sally Wraight

Sally Wraight, BA, PGCE, DRCOG, MRCGP, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

Fraser Arends

Fraser Arends, MBBS, MRCPsych, DipABRSM, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.