Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27558271›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2016

How do medical specialists value their own intercultural communication behaviour? A reflective practice study.

E Paternotte, F Scheele, T R van Rossum, M C Seeleman, A J J A Scherpbier, A M van Dulmen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

E PaternotteDepartment of Healthcare Education, OLVG Hospital, P.O. Box 9243, 1006, AE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. emmapaternotte@gmail.com.
F ScheeleDepartment of Healthcare Education, OLVG Hospital, P.O. Box 9243, 1006, AE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T R van RossumDepartment of Healthcare Education, OLVG Hospital, P.O. Box 9243, 1006, AE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M C SeelemanJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A J J A ScherpbierInstitute for Medical Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A M van DulmenNIVEL (Netherlands Institute for health services research), P.O. Box 1568, 3500, BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLMaastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntercultural communication behaviour of doctors with patients requires specific intercultural communication skills, which do not seem structurally implemented in medical education. It is unclear what motivates doctors to apply intercultural communication skills. We investigated how purposefully medical specialists think they practise intercultural communication and how they reflect on their own communication behaviour.

methodsUsing reflective practice, 17 medical specialists independently watched two fragments of videotapes of their own outpatient consultations: one with a native patient and one with a non-native patient. They were asked to reflect on their own communication and on challenges they experience in intercultural communication. The interviews were open coded and analysed using thematic network analysis.

resultsThe participants experienced only little differences in their communication with native and non-native patients. They mainly mentioned generic communication skills, such as listening and checking if the patient understood. Many participants experienced their communication with non-native patients positively. The participants mentioned critical incidences of intercultural communication: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere.

conclusionDespite extensive experience in intercultural communication, the participants of this study noticed hardly any differences between their own communication behaviour with native and non-native patients. This could mean that they are unaware that consultations with non-native patients might cause them to communicate differently than with native patients. The reason for this could be that medical specialists lack the skills to reflect on the process of the communication. The participants focused on their generic communication skills rather than on specific intercultural communication skills, which could either indicate their lack of awareness, or demonstrate that practicing generic communication is more important than applying specific intercultural communication. They mentioned well-known critical incidences of ICC: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they showed a remarkably enthusiastic attitude overall was noteworthy. A strategy to make doctors more aware of their intercultural communication behaviour could be a combination of experiential learning and ICC training, for example a module with reflective practice.

Indexed as

CommunicationCultural CompetencyPhysician-Patient RelationsAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunication BarriersEmigrants and ImmigrantsFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPhysiciansProfessional CompetenceVideotape RecordingCommunication behaviourCommunication skillsGeneric communicationIntercultural communicationInterviewsPerson-centred communicationReflective practiceVideotaped consultations

Identifiers

PMID27558271
PMCPMC4997670
OpenAlexW2509073207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.