Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33971866›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Let's ask the patient - composition and validation of a questionnaire for patients' feedback to medical students.

Karin Björklund, Terese Stenfors, Gunnar H Nilsson, Hassan Alinaghizadeh, Charlotte Leanderson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Learning from patients' written feedback: medical students' experiences.International journal of medical education · 2022
    Article
  7. Ask the Parent: Developing a Pediatric Feedback Form for Medical Learners.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karin BjörklundDivision of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. karin.bjorklund@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3146-5356
Terese StenforsDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gunnar H NilssonDivision of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hassan AlinaghizadehAcademic Primary Health Care Centre, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Charlotte LeandersonDivision of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society (NVS), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEStockholm Health Care Services · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdequate communication and maintaining a patient-centered approach throughout patient encounters are important skills for medical students to develop. Feedback is often provided by clinical teachers. Patients are seldom asked to provide feedback to students that systematically addresses knowledge and skills regarding communication and patient-centeredness during an encounter. One way for patients to provide feedback to students is through a questionnaire; there is, however, a lack of such validated feedback questionnaires. This study aimed to compose and validate a feedback questionnaire for patients' feedback to medical students regarding students' ability to communicate and apply patient-centeredness in clinical practice.

methodThis study comprises (a) composition of the questionnaire and (b) validation of the questionnaire. The composition included (1) literature review, (2) selection and composition of items and construction of an item pool, (3) test of items' content, and (4) test of the applicability of the questionnaire. The items originated from the Calgary-Cambridge Guide (Kurtz S, Silverman J, Benson J and Draper J, Acad Med 78:802-809, 2003), the 'Swedish National Patient Survey' (National Patient Survey, Primary Health Care, 2020), patient evaluation form by Braend et al. (Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 126:2122-5, 2006), and additional developed items. The items were further developed after feedback from 65 patients, 22 students, eight clinical supervisors, and six clinical teachers. The validation process included 246 patients who provided feedback to 80 students. Qualitative content analysis and psychometric methods were used and exploratory factor analysis assessed internal validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to test the reliability of the items.

resultsThe process resulted in the 19-item 'Patient Feedback in Clinical Practice' (PFCP) questionnaire. Construct validity revealed two dimensions: consultational approach and transfer of information. Internal consistency was high. Thematic analysis resulted in three themes: ability to capture the personal agenda of the consultation, alignment with the consultation, and constructs and characteristics. Students reported that the PFCP questionnaire provided useful feedback that could facilitate their learning in clinical practice.

conclusionsThe results of this study indicate that the questionnaire is a valid, reliable, and internally consistent instrument for patients' feedback to medical students. The participants found the questionnaire to be useful for the provision of feedback in clinical practice. However, further studies are required regarding the PFCP questionnaire applicability as a feedback tool in workplace learning.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalFeedbackHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenClinical practiceCommunicationComposition of questionnaireMedical studentsPatient-centeredPatient feedbackQuestionnaire validationSurveyWork-based learning

Identifiers

PMID33971866
PMCPMC8111976
OpenAlexW3163164566

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.