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.
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.
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
15 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
- Specific feedback makes medical students better communicators.BMC medical education · 2019Trial
- How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn Check.Medical education online · 2017Trial
- A longitudinal curriculum for teaching communication skills in undergraduate dental education: Evaluation and self-assessment.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- The practical year: a qualitative study on stressors, resources and proposed improvements among medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Factors That Enhance and Hinder the Retention and Transfer of Online Pre-Clinical Skills Training to Facilitate Blended Learning.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- Multisource feedback in medical students' workplace learning in primary health care.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- The Longitudinal Communication Curriculum at Leipzig University, Medical Faculty - implementation and first experiences.GMS journal for medical education · 2021Article
- Communication skills supervisors' monitoring of history-taking performance: an observational study on how doctors and non-doctors use cues to prepare feedback.BMC medical education · 2020Observational
- 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 · 2019Article
- Developing a novel framework for non-technical skills learning strategies for undergraduates: A systematic review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2018Review
- Comparison of Dental Students' Self-Evaluation and Faculty Evaluation of Communication Skills During a Standardized Patient Exercise.Journal of dental education · 2018Article
- Physician preparedness for big genomic data: a review of genomic medicine education initiatives in the United States.Human molecular genetics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.