Effect of Communication Skill Training Based on Calgary-Cambridge Observation Model on Midwifery Students' Communication Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Communication skills are of top priority for health care providerchr('39')s professional traits and communication is an essential part of the midwifery care. Many studies of midwifery and midwifery studentschr('39') communication skills are poor and average. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of communication skills training through the Calgary Cambridge model on communication skill among midwifery students. Methods: This randomized controlled field trial was conducted in 2018. Thirty midwifery students were recruited using conventional sampling method from Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran. Then subjects was assigned into two experimental and control groups by stratified random allocation method. Initially, their communication skill was assessed using Queendom scale. Participants in the experimental group received communication skills training based on Calgary-Cambridge model in four four-hour sessions held twice weekly. The control group did not receive any intervention. Communication skill in both control and experimental groups was re-assessed respectively four weeks after pretest. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the independent-sample t test and the paired-sample test in SPSS-16 software. Results: The pretest mean scores of communication skill in the experimental and the control groups were respectively 122.43±9.40 and 122.29±7.81, with no significant between-group difference. At post-test, the mean score of communication skill in the experimental and the control groups was respectively 122±8.06 and 120±8.08 and the between-group difference was not significant (P=0.51). Conclusion: Communication skills training through Calgary-Cambridge model is not effective in significantly improving midwifery students’ communication skill. Therefore, to improve communication skills, this model is insufficient and may need to be modified, or it is necessary to add more intervention to this model.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".