Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819352›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

A randomised controlled trial of feedback to improve patient satisfaction and consultation skills in medical students.

Michelle M Y Lai, Noel Roberts, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Jenepher Martin

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

4 authors.

Michelle M Y LaiMedical Student Programs, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University and Deakin University, Level 2, Arnold Street, Box Hill, VIC, 3128, Australia. michelle.m.lai@curtin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0876-5676
Noel RobertsMedical Student Programs, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University and Deakin University, Level 2, Arnold Street, Box Hill, VIC, 3128, Australia.
Mohammadreza MohebbiBiostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Jenepher MartinMedical Student Programs, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University and Deakin University, Level 2, Arnold Street, Box Hill, VIC, 3128, Australia.

Funding

Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University CF13/779 - 2013000356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of feedback has been integral to medical student learning, but rigorous evidence to evaluate its education effect is limited, especially in the role of patient feedback in clinical teaching and practice improvement. The aim of the Patient Teaching Associate (PTA) Feedback Study was to evaluate whether additional written consumer feedback on patient satisfaction improved consultation skills among medical students and whether multisource feedback (MSF) improved student performance.

methodsIn this single site, double-blinded randomised controlled trial, 71 eligible medical students from two universities in their first clinical year were allocated to intervention or control and followed up for one semester. They participated in five simulated student-led consultations in a teaching clinic with patient volunteers living with chronic illness. Students in the intervention group received additional written feedback on patient satisfaction combined with guided self-reflection. The control group received usual immediate formative multisource feedback from tutors, patients and peers. Student characteristics, baseline patient-rated satisfaction scores and tutor-rated consultation skills were measured.

resultsFollow-up assessments were complete in 70 students attending the MSF program. At the final consultation episodes, both groups improved patient-rated rapport (P = 0.002), tutor-rated patient-centeredness and tutor-rated overall consultation skills (P = 0.01). The intervention group showed significantly better tutor-rated patient-centeredness (P = 0.003) comparing with the control group. Distress relief, communication comfort, rapport reported by patients and tutor-rated clinical skills did not differ significantly between the two groups.

conclusionsThe innovative multisource feedback program effectively improved consultation skills in medical students. Structured written consumer feedback combined with guided student reflection further improved patient-centred practice and effectively enhanced the benefit of an MSF model. This strategy might provide a valuable adjunct to communication skills education for medical students.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12613001055796 .

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalAustraliaClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansPatient SatisfactionReferral and ConsultationTeachingClinical competenceClinical skillsFormative feedbackHealth behaviourMedical educationMedical studentsPatient satisfactionRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32819352
PMCPMC7439652

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.