Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32200607›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry investigation2020

Standardized Patients or Conventional Lecture for Teaching Communication Skills to Undergraduate Medical Students: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Pierre A Geoffroy, Julie Delyon, Marion Strullu, Alexy Tran Dinh, Henri Duboc, Lara Zafrani, Isabelle Etienne, Michel Lejoyeux, Pierre-François Ceccaldi, Patrick Plaisance and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors.

Pierre A GeoffroyiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Julie DelyoniLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Marion StrulluiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Alexy Tran DinhiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Henri DubociLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Lara ZafraniiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Isabelle EtienneiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Michel LejoyeuxiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Pierre-François CeccaldiiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Patrick PlaisanceiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.
Hugo PeyreiLumens Diderot Simulation Health Center, Paris University, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe conduct of a medical interview is a challenging skill, even for the most qualified physicians. Since a training is needed to acquire the necessary skills to conduct an interview with a patient, we compared role-play with standardized patients (SP) training and a conventional lecture for the acquisition of communications skills in undergraduate medical students.

methodsAn entire promotion of third year undergraduate medical students, who never received any lessons about communications skills, were randomized into 4 arms: 1) SP 2 months before the testing of medical communications skills (SP); 2) conventional lecture 2 months before the testing (CL); 3) two control groups (CG) without any intervention, tested either at the beginning of the study or two months later. Students were blindly assessed by trained physicians with a modified 17-items Calgary-Cambridge scale.

results388 students (98.7%) participated. SP performed better than CL, with significant statistical differences regarding 5 skills: the use of open and closed questions, encouraging patient responses, inviting the patient to clarify the missing items, encouraging of the patient's emotions, and managing the time and the conduct of the interview. The SP group specifically improved communications skills between the SP training and testing sessions regarding 2 skills: the use of open and closed questions and encouraging patient responses. No improvements in communications skills were observed in CG between the two time points, ruling out a possible time effect.

conclusionRole-play with standardized patients appears more efficient than conventional lecture to acquire communication skills in undergraduate medical students.

Indexed as

Communication trainingStandardized patientUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID32200607
PMCPMC7176569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.