ArticleDer Nervenarzt2017
[Effectively communicate active listening : Comparison of two concepts].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for improving medical students' interpersonal communication in medical consultations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A novel multi-measure approach to study medical students' communication performance and predictors of their communication quality - a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communication between physicians and patients has a great influence on patient adherence, patient satisfaction and the success of treatment. In this context, patient centered care and emotional support have a high positive impact; however, it is unclear how physicians can be motivated to communicate with patients in an appreciative and empathetic way. The implementation of such behavior requires a multitude of communicative skills. One of them is active listening, which is very important in two respects. On the one hand active listening provides the basis for several conversational contexts as a special communication technique and on the other hand active listening is presented in current textbooks in different ways: as an attitude or as a technique. In light of this, the question arises how active listening should be taught in order to be not only applicable in concrete conversations but also to lead to the highest possible level of patient satisfaction. The aim of this pilot study was to examine some variations in simulated doctor-patient conversations, which are the result of the different approaches to active listening. For this purpose three groups of first semester medical students were recruited, two of which were schooled in active listening in different ways (two groups of six students), i.e. attitude versus technique oriented. The third group (seven students) acted as the control group. In a pre-post design interviews with standardized simulation patients were conducted and subsequently evaluated. The analysis of these interviews was considered from the perspectives of participants and observers as well as the quantitative aspects. This study revealed some interesting tendencies despite its status as a pilot study: in general, the two interventional groups performed significantly better than the control group in which no relevant changes occurred. In a direct comparison, the group in which active listening was taught from an attitude approach achieved better results than the group in which the focus was on the technical aspects of active listening. In the group with active listening schooled as an attitude, the response to the feelings of the standardized simulation patients was significantly better from the perspectives of both participants and observers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27448178What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.