ArticleMedical science educator2018
Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: The G-PACER.
Article in Medical science educator, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Brief Health Equity/Implicit Bias Education on Patient-Centered Communication Among Clinical Teaching Faculty.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- A Novel Communication Rating Scale to Mitigate the Effect of Implicit Bias.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Development of a validated assessment tool for medical students using simulated patients: an 8-year panel survey.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study sought to validate the Georgetown PAtient-CEnteredness Rating Scale (G-PACER) standardized patient (SP) checklist as a measure of patient-centered communication in patient-provider interactions. Patient centeredness is associated with improved doctor-patient communication and better health outcomes. Simulated medical encounters using SPs are an important way to teach and evaluate provider communication skills, yet validated SP scales that focus on patient-centered communication are limited. Two versions of an SP checklist of provider interaction behaviors, the G-PACER, were developed as part of a training designed to improve relationships between providers and patients who have experienced trauma. Concurrent validity of the G-PACER was assessed with Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) summary scores, particularly the patient-centeredness summary score. Item-total correlations were conducted to determine which items should be retained for future versions of the scale. Scores on the G-PACER were significantly correlated with the RIAS Patient-Centeredness score. Correlation analysis also revealed significant associations between G-PACER Total Score and RIAS Global Affect Ratings. The twelve-item version of the G-PACER performed at a commensurate level with the longer version; thus, it's use is recommended in future research. This study represents an important step in the development of reliable, valid, and efficient tools to add to those available for evaluating patient-provider interactions from the SP perspective.
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.