MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599782223 · doi:10.21815/jde.016.003

Determining Recommendations for Improvement of Communication Skills Training in Dental Education: A Scoping Review

2017· review· en· W2599782223 on OpenAlexaff
Caitlyn Ayn, Lynne Robinson, April Nason, John G.L. Lovas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationCommunication skills trainingCommunication skillsPsychological interventionSkills managementTraining (meteorology)Diversity (politics)PsychologyProfessional developmentProfessional communicationComputer scienceMedicineNursingPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional communication skills have a significant impact on dental patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Communication skills training has been shown to improve the communication skills of dental students. Therefore, strengthening communication skills training in dental education shows promise for improving dental patient satisfaction and outcomes. The aim of this study was to facilitate the development of dental communication skills training through a scoping review with compilation of a list of considerations, design of an example curriculum, and consideration of barriers and facilitators to adoption of such training. A search to identify studies of communication skills training interventions and programs was conducted. Search queries were run in three databases using both text strings and controlled terms (MeSH), yielding 1,833 unique articles. Of these, 35 were full-text reviewed, and 17 were included in the final synthesis. Considerations presented in the articles were compiled into 15 considerations. These considerations were grouped into four themes: the value of communication skills training, the role of instructors, the importance of accounting for diversity, and the structure of communication skills training. An example curriculum reflective of these considerations is presented, and consideration of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation are discussed. Application and evaluation of these considerations are recommended in order to support and inform future communication skills training development.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.158 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207