Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27756286›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2016

Integrating 360° behavior-orientated feedback in communication skills training for medical undergraduates: concept, acceptance and students' self-ratings of communication competence.

Cosima Engerer, Pascal O Berberat, Andreas Dinkel, Baerbel Rudolph, Heribert Sattel, Alexander Wuensch

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Training Undergraduates Skills in Breaking Bad News: How Students Value Educators' Feedback.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
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.

Cosima EngererTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Pascal O BerberatTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Andreas DinkelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Langerstrasse 3, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Baerbel RudolphDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Langerstrasse 3, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Heribert SattelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Langerstrasse 3, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Alexander WuenschTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Strasse 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. dr.alexander.wuensch@web.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4893-290X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback is considered a key didactic element in medical education, especially for teaching of communication skills. This study investigates the impact of a best evidence-based practice feedback concept within the context of communication skills training (CST). We evaluate this concept for acceptance and changes in students self-ratings of communication competence.

methodsOur CST integrating feedback process comprises a short theoretical introduction presenting standards for good communication and a constructive 360° feedback from three perspectives: feedback from peers, from standardized patients (SPs), and from a trainer. Feed-forward process was facilitated for documenting suggestions for improvements based on observable behaviors to maximize learning benefits. Our CST was applied to four groups of eight or nine students. We assessed the data on students' acceptance using a 6-point scale ranging from very good (1) to poor (6), applied a forced choice question to rank didactic items, and assessed changes in student' self-ratings of their communication competence on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS).

resultsThirty-four medical undergraduates (82 % female, 18 % male) in their first clinical year, with an average age of 21.4 years (SD = 1.0), participated in the new training. The concept achieved high acceptance from good to very good: overall impression (M = 1.56), sufficient interaction for discussion (M = 1.15), and constructive learning atmosphere (M = 1.18). Specific elements, such as practical training with SPs (M = 1.18) and feedback by SPs (M = 1.12), showed highest acceptance. The forced choice ranking placed all feedback elements at the top of the list (feedback (FB) by SPs, rank 2; FB by trainer, rank 3; FB by colleagues, rank 4), whereas theoretical elements were at the bottom (theoretical introduction, rank 7; memory card, rank 9). Overall, student self-ratings of communication competence significantly improved in nine of the ten communication items assessed by VAS and showed a pre-post effect size of ES = 0.74 on a global rating.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the training concept based on 360° behavioral feedback was well accepted and generated significant changes in student self-ratings of their communication competence. Further research is needed to determine the effects on objective communication performance.

Indexed as

CommunicationFormative FeedbackSelf ReportAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansLearningPatient SimulationPeer GroupPhysician-Patient RelationsStudents, Medical360° feedbackCommunication skills trainingCSTFeedbackFeed-forwardMedical educationMedical studentsTraining concept

Identifiers

PMID27756286
PMCPMC5069808

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.