MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of clinical communication skills between two groups of final-year medical students with different levels of communication skills training

2007· article· en· W2139398872 on OpenAlex
MR De Villiers, Martie Van Heusden

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Family Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunication skills trainingActive listeningMedical educationCurriculumCommunication skillsContext (archaeology)MedicineSession (web analytics)Training (meteorology)MulticulturalismPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundTraining in communication skills is prominent in many undergraduate medical programmes. In South Africa, training in this highly complex skill is developing rapidly, especially against the backdrop of a multilingual and multicultural society. Little work has been done locally to evaluate which training works best in our context. In 1999, the Stellenbosch University Faculty of Health Sciences introduced a new curriculum that included considerably more communication skills training. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the communication skills used in the consultations of two groups of final-year medical students who had different levels of communication skills training in order to make recommendations on appropriate changes in this training.MethodsStandardised doctor-patient interviews performed by students during the final-year examinations in 2003 and 2004 were videotaped. These were assessed by two independent, blinded evaluators using an abbreviated version of the Calgary- Cambridge communication guide for skills not done (0) and done (1). The data was analysed using STATISTICA 7.ResultsA total of 161 interviews were analysed. Both groups performed well (mean = 1) in listening to the opening question, encouraging the patients to tell their story, and demonstrating appropriate non-verbal behaviour. However, ending the session by summarising and clarifying the plan was poorly performed (mean = 0.4). The 2004 group was statistically significantly better in structuring the consultation by using signposting (p value = 0.02).ConclusionThere are a number of influences on the effectiveness of communication skills training, including issues around language, culture and gender, student attitudes, the significance of communication skills training in the programme and, most importantly, the integration of this training into the curriculum as a whole. Merely adding more time to communication skills training does not seem to be the answer. Incorporating a wider range of training methods is also important. The results of this impact study acted as an impetus for innovative curriculum development in our faculty, leading to the development of a comprehensive clinical model and a “golden thread” for communication skills in the curriculum to ensure the longitudinal integration of communication skills.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.371
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it