Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28815515›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2019

Assessing Communication Skills in Real Medical Encounters in Oncology: Development and Validation of the ComOn-Coaching Rating Scales.

Marcelo Niglio de Figueiredo, Lorena Krippeit, Johanna Freund, Gabriele Ihorst, Andreas Joos, Juergen Bengel, Alexander Wuensch

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Impact of discriminant factors on the comfort-care of nurses caring for trans-arterial chemoembolisation patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marcelo Niglio de FigueiredoDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 8, Freiburg, 79104, Germany. marcelo.de.figueiredo@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2087-2917
Lorena KrippeitDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 8, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
Johanna FreundDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 8, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
Gabriele IhorstClinical Trials Unit, Medical Center-University of Freiburg Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Andreas JoosDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 8, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
Juergen BengelRehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexander WuenschDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hauptstr. 8, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the challenges in research on teaching physician-patient communication is how to assess communication, necessary for evaluating training, the learning process, and for feedback. Few instruments have been validated for real physician-patient consultations. Real consultations involve unique contexts, different persons, and topics, and are difficult to compare. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a rating scale for assessment of such consultations. For the evaluation study of a communication skills training for physicians in oncology, real consultations were recorded in three assessment points. Based on earlier work and on current studies, a new instrument was developed for assessment of these consultations. Two psychologists were trained in using the instrument and assessed 42 consultations. For inter-rater reliability, interclass correlation (ICC) was calculated. The final version of the rating scales consists of 13 items evaluated on a 5-point scale. The items are grouped in seven areas: "Start of conversation," "assessment of the patient's perspective," "structure of conversation," "emotional issues," "end of conversation," "general communication skills," and "overall evaluation." ICC coefficients for the domains ranged from .44 to .77. An overall coefficient of all items resulted in an ICC of .66. The ComOn-Coaching Rating Scales are a short, reliable, and applicable instrument for the assessment of real physician-patient consultations in oncology. If adapted, they could be used in other areas. They were developed for research and teaching purposes and meet the required methodological criteria. Rater training should be considered more deeply by further research.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMentoringMiddle AgedOncologistsReferral and ConsultationReproducibility of ResultsClinical competenceCommunicationCommunication assessmentData accuracyMedical oncology/educationPhysician-patient relations

Identifiers

PMID28815515
OpenAlexW2746233916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.