MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160265554 · doi:10.1111/medu.12280

Too much small talk? Medical students’ pelvic examination skills falter with pleasant patients

2013· article· en· W2160265554 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Posner, Stanley J. Hamstra

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa Skills and Simulation CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentCommunication skillsConversationObjective structured clinical examinationMedical educationPsychologyPelvic examinationMedicineMathematics educationGynecologyCommunicationFormative assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The competent performance of a female pelvic examination requires both technical proficiency and superlative communication skills. However, the ideal medium with which to assess these skills remains to be elucidated. Part-task trainers (PTTs) offer an effective and affordable means of testing technical skills, but may not allow students to demonstrate their communication skills. Hybrids involving standardised patients (SPs) (SP-PTT) offer a more realistic assessment of communication, but students may feel awkward when examining the female genitalia. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the use of PTTs with that of SP-PTT hybrids in the assessment of technical and communication skills in the female pelvic examination. METHODS: A total of 145 medical students were randomised to one of three conditions during their summative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at the completion of clerkship. Students performed the female pelvic examination on: (i) a PTT alone ('plastic' condition); (ii) an SP-PTT hybrid with an SP who did not engage in any superfluous conversation ('perfunctory' condition), or (iii) an SP-PTT hybrid with an SP who was trained to offer small talk and banter, which was judged to better reflect the typical doctor-patient interaction ('pleasant' condition). RESULTS: Communication skills did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.354). There was a significant difference among groups in technical skills scores (p = 0.0018). Students in the 'plastic' condition performed best, followed by those in the 'perfunctory' and 'pleasant' conditions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students demonstrate equivalent communication skills whether they work with a PTT or an SP-PTT hybrid, but their technical skills suffer in the presence of an SP. Working with the PTT alone does not appear to disadvantage students in terms of communication skills, but may offer better conditions for performing technical aspects of the procedure. Whether the 'plastic patient' is the most meaningful and valid means of predicting overall competence in the clinical setting is still a matter for debate.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207