Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30736764›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2019

Specific feedback makes medical students better communicators.

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

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Evaluation of the impact of an intervention on the communication skills of first-year pediatric residentsRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Cosima EngererTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Pascal O BerberatTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andreas DinkelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bärbel RudolphDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Heribert SattelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alexander WuenschTUM Medical Education Center, TUM School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. alexander.wuensch@uniklinik-freiburg.de.

Funding

Medical Faculty of the Technical University of Munich, Germany n.a.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback is regarded a key element in teaching communication skills. However, specific aspects of feedback have not been systematically investigated in this context. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of communication skills training (CST) integrating specific, structured and behavioral feedback.

methodsWe condensed best practice recommendations for feedback in a CST for undergraduate medical students and compared the effect of specific, structured and behavior-orientated feedback (intervention group CST-behav) to general, experience-orientated feedback (CST- exp. as our control group) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We investigated changes on communication skills evaluated by independent raters, and evaluated by standardized patients (SP). To do that, every student was video-recorded in a pre and post assessment.

resultsSixty-six undergraduate medical students participated voluntarily in our study. Randomization did not result in equally skilled groups at baseline, so valid inter-group comparisons were not possible. Therefore, we analyzed the results of 34 students of our intervention group (CST-behav). Five out of seven domains in communication skills as evaluated by independent raters improved significantly, and there was a significant change in the global evaluation by SP.

conclusionsAlthough we were unable to make between-group comparisons, the results of the within group pre-post evaluation suggest that specific feedback helps improve communication skills.

Indexed as

CommunicationFormative FeedbackClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleHumansMalePhysician-Patient RelationsPractice Guidelines as TopicStudents, MedicalYoung AdultCommunication skills trainingCSTMedical educationRandomized controlled trialRCTSpecific, structured and behavior-oriented feedback

Identifiers

PMID30736764
PMCPMC6368801

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.