Adolescent interviewing skills: effect of feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communicating with adolescent patients can be challenging. Our study assessed the effect of structured feedback following a standardised patient (SP) encounter on postgraduate year-1 (PGY1) residents' adolescent-specific communication skills. Communicating with adolescent patients can be challenging METHODS: A two-group, prospective, double-blind randomised control study design was employed. Measures were taken before and after the intervention. PGY1 residents conducted a 30-minute interview with an SP adolescent-mother pair, who then individually scored the resident's performance using the validated Structured Communication Adolescent Guide (SCAG). PGY1s were randomised to receive either structured feedback following the interview (feedback group) or no feedback (no feedback group). All residents completed a second interview 4-6 weeks later. Scores were analysed using unpaired t-tests. RESULTS: Thirty-eight residents completed both interviews. The mean total-item and mean global scores for the first interview did not differ significantly between the feedback (n = 21) and no-feedback group (n = 17). The mean total-item scores for the feedback group [first interview: 34.19 ± 10.19 (adolescent); 36.33 ± 9.77 (mother)] improved significantly for the second interview [45.17 ± 6.22 (adolescent); 44.71 ± 6.72 (mother); p = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively]. The mean global scores also improved significantly from the first interview [27.00 ± 6.49 (adolescent); 27.47 ± 6.50 (mother)] to the second interview [34.05 ± 3.30 (adolescent); 31.19 ± 3.85 (mother); p = 0.001 and 0.03, respectively]. No significant improvement in the mean total-item or mean global rating was observed in the no feedback group. CONCLUSIONS: Structured feedback following a single adolescent and mother SP encounter resulted in significant improvement in the adolescent-specific communication skills of PGY1s in performing an adolescent interview.
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 | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".