Skills for Interviewing Adolescent Patients: Sustainability of Structured Feedback in Undergraduate Education on Performance in Residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective adolescent (10 to 19 years) interviewing by physicians is an essential skill that many trainees can find challenging. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether structured adolescent interviewing using standardized patients (SPs) and feedback in undergraduate medical education (UME) has a sustained effect on residents' skills. METHODS: Postgraduate year (PGY) 1 residents conducted interviews with a SP adolescent-mother pair. The SPs independently scored each PGY-1 interview using the structured communication adolescent guide (SCAG). Unpaired t tests were conducted comparing "Total-Item" and "Global" scores of PGY-1s who received structured SP adolescent interviewing with feedback in UME ("structured training" group) to those who had not ("no structured training" group). RESULTS: PGY-1s in the structured training group (n = 23) received significantly higher mean Total-Item scores from both the SP adolescent (40.78 ± 7.04 and 32.41 ± 10.12, respectively; P = .001) and the SP mother (40.48 ± 7.90 and 33.34 ± 10.90, respectively; P = .01) than those without structured training (n = 29). Statistically significant results favoring PGY-1s with prior training were also seen with the SP adolescent and mother total Global SCAG scores. CONCLUSIONS: Structured training in adolescent interviewing with SPs and feedback in UME appears to have a sustained effect on residents' adolescent interviewing skills. PGY-1s will interview adolescents and may benefit from structured adolescent SP interviewing with feedback, especially individuals who did not have this experience during their medical school training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".