ReviewCureus2025
Rethinking Medical Education Through Connection: A Narrative Review of Cultivating Collaborative Intelligence for Sustainable Healthcare.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing Evidence-Based Health Innovation in Brazil: A Qualitative Program Evaluation of a Binational Educational Initiative to Build Interprofessional Capacity.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- 'A ripple effect of learning': evaluating intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education through collective evaluation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Effects of unfolding case-based simulation in obstetrics and gynecology internships on caring ability and caring behaviors: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern healthcare faces unprecedented complexity, driven by aging populations, chronic diseases, global health threats, and widening health disparities. These challenges are deeply embedded in social, institutional, and environmental systems, demanding a shift from isolated clinical practice to dynamic, multi-layered collaboration. Yet, current medical education, both in Japan and globally, often underprepares learners for the relational, interprofessional, and systemic demands of real-world healthcare. This narrative review explores how medical education must be reimagined to cultivate "collaborative intelligence," the ability to engage across disciplinary, generational, institutional, and community boundaries. Drawing on educational theories such as Vygotsky's social constructivism, we advocate for a connection-centered, practice-oriented curriculum that embeds relational learning across all stages of training. Through redesigned clinical clerkships, interprofessional simulations, community-based rotations, and structured mentorship, students can develop not only communication and teamwork skills but also the ethical reasoning and adaptive leadership required in complex care environments. We also examine structural barriers, including institutional silos, hierarchical cultures, and outdated assessment systems, that continue to impede meaningful collaboration. We argue that embedding connection into the core of medical education is both a pedagogical necessity and a moral imperative. Ultimately, the goal is not only to adapt to the complexity of healthcare systems but also to empower future professionals to transform them toward resilience, equity, and human-centered care. In doing so, medical education can become a catalyst for sustainable health systems and inclusive communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.