Improving general practitioners’ interviewing skills in managing patients with depression and anxiety: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies regarding the effectiveness of CME programmes on physicians' behaviour and communication skills showed inconsistent results. Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted in Asia. METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness of a 4 2-hour education programme to improve GP interviewing behaviours, 16 general practitioners were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Physicians assigned to the intervention group received 8 hours of training emphasizing interviewing behaviours in the diagnosis and treatment of depression and generalized anxiety disorders (GDS). Those assigned to the control group did not receive any training until the completion of study. Standardized patients were used to evaluate the performance of physicians. Two consultations before and after enrolling in the education programme were videotaped. Independent evaluations of consultations were made by a trained clinical psychologist and a social worker blinded to the study status of physicians. The rating schedule for the videotapes was based on the tasks listed on the Calgary Cambridge Observation Guide. RESULTS: The change of score between the intervention and control physicians was significantly different in 'active listening and facilitating patients' response' (p = 0.011) with the intervention physicians having improvement of score. For 'non-verbals', 'understanding patient's perspective' and 'negotiating mutual plan of action', positive change of score in the intervention physicians were seen when compared to that of the control, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06, p = 0.05, p = 0.06, respectively). However, for 'opening', 'structuring the consultation', 'explanation and planning' and 'closure', there were no statistical significant differences between control and intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that only certain communication skills, such as active listening and facilitating patient's response, can be taught in the management of depression and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in Chinese primary care physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".