ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2019
Pilot study of a condensed communication skills workshop for gynecologic oncology fellows.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Right-sizing interprofessional team training for serious-illness communication: A strength-based approach.PEC innovation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In gynecologic oncology (GO) fellowship, devoting sufficient time to learning communication skills can be challenging due to required time and logistics. A two day workshop was previously piloted at a single institution with GOs and found to be beneficial. We sought to implement that curriculum in a condensed form. We conducted two four-hour sessions with 4 GO fellows at a single institution over 4 months. Sessions consisted of a didactic in communication skills led by faculty with VitalTalk™ training, followed by application with a simulated patient. Cases were developed and previously used in a two-day workshop at another institution. Fellows were surveyed prior to both sessions and after the second session. Perceived confidence was assessed on a Likert scale (1 to 5). An improvement was defined by an increase of ≥1 in Likert score. All fellows reported that the educational quality of the sessions was "excellent," that the time in between sessions was "just right," allowing them to apply skills learned in the first session prior to the second. After both sessions, at least three of the four fellows reported an improvement in confidence in nearly 50% (10/21) of the communication topics assessed. GO fellows perceived improvements in communication skills with condensed half-day training seminars.
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.