How does feedback from patients impact upon healthcare student clinical skill development and learning? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A key feature of health professionals' training, irrespective of discipline, is the acquisition and application of clinical and communication skills. Despite this, little is known about the potential role of patient feedback on this process. This systematic review aimed to answer the question: How does feedback from patients impact upon healthcare student clinical skill development and learning? DESIGN: Systematic review of published literature. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies that explored the effects of patient feedback on student learning and were published before March 2016. Eligible articles underwent methodological evaluation using the McMaster University Critical Evaluation Forms and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of 237 articles were retrieved following searches of electronic databases and hand searches of reference lists. Twelve (7 quantitative, 2 qualitative, 3 mixed methods) studies met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies reported that patient feedback improved students' clinical skills. CONCLUSION: Minimal research has explored the impact of patient feedback on student learning. The research to date suggests that direct feedback from patients may be beneficial for the development of students' communication and clinical skills; however, the wide variety of evaluation methods and the lack of validated tools for patients to provide feedback suggest that further exploration is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".