Trial reportPatient education and counseling2017
Detecting the effects of physician training in self-care interviewing skills: Coding of standardized patient (SP) visit recordings versus SP post-visit ratings.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Optimizing diabetes self-care in patients with limited health literacy: a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of SCT-based education with and without an AI-designed photo-novel.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training.BMC medicine · 2024Trial
- Assessing Physician's Motivational Communication Skills: 5-Step Mixed Methods Development Study of the Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare how coder ratings of standardized patient (SP) visit recordings and SP ratings of the visits detect primary care physician (PCP) training in self-efficacy enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT).
methodsAnalyses of data from 50 PCPs who participated in a randomized controlled trial of SEE IT training, which led to increased SEE IT use during three SP visits 1-3 months post-intervention. Untrained SPs rated SEE IT use post-visit. Subsequently, three trained coders generated a consensus SEE IT rating from visit audio recordings. SPs and coders were blinded to provider study arm, and coders to SP ratings.
resultsSP and coder ratings were correlated (r=0.62). In detecting the intervention effect, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.84) for consensus coder and SP ratings, respectively (difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04-0.11; z=1.04, p=0.30).
conclusionSP ratings were not significantly different from coder ratings of SP visit recordings in detecting PCP SEE IT training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If similar findings are observed in larger studies, it would suggest a greater role for SP ratings in detecting provider interviewing skills training, given the relative simplicity, low cost, and non-intrusiveness of the approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.