Comparison of Communications Styles Amongst Students in Allied Health Professions Programs: How Do Our Students Communicate with Other Healthcare Providers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Optimal patient outcomes require communication between providers in multiple professions to initiate referrals, communicate patient treatment, and coordinate care. While there is a clear need for increased understanding of the terminology, skills, and scopes of practice of professional colleagues, these tools are of limited effectiveness if there is poor interpersonal communication between team members. Multiple bodies for Interprofessional Practice and Education (IPP/IPE) identify communication skills as an integral part of education. In fact, the third competency domain set down by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative, Interprofessional Communication, states that professionals should, “Recognize how one’s own uniqueness, including experience level, expertise, culture, power, and hierarchy within the healthcare team, contributes to effective communication, conflict resolution, and positive interprofessional working relationships” [1].Methods and Findings: As part of a required interprofessional competence course, first-year students in ten health professions programs completed the Personal Coaching Style Inventory (PSCI) to self-identify personal communication styles. A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses followed by Tukey post-hoc analyses were performed in order to identify significant differences in PSCI component scores between programs. Within groups, students discussed personal and cohort-wide findings as they impact teamwork. The majority of students identified with the Mediator style. Differences in style were also found in relation to profession, gender, and race. The activity prompted discussion of varied roles in team dynamics, and how differences in style could affect interprofessional teamwork.Conclusions: Self-awareness of personal communication styles as well as predominant styles of other health professions may enhance interprofessional communication\skills. The skill with which students approach their team roles in heterogeneous groups following graduation has the potential to increase team functionality and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".