Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34708923›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022

Introductory patient communication training for medical physics graduate students: Pilot experience.

Laura Padilla, Whitney Burton Meleski, Caitlin Dominick, Caroline Athing, Cassidy L Jones, Dana Burns, Lauretta A Cathers, Emma C Fields

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura PadillaVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6431-6643
Whitney Burton MeleskiVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Caitlin DominickVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Caroline AthingVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Cassidy L JonesVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Dana BurnsVirginia Commonwealth University, School of Nursing, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Lauretta A CathersVirginia Commonwealth University, College of Health Professions, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Emma C FieldsVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Radiation Oncology, 401 College St, Richmond, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2871-078X
Virginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite medical physics becoming a more patient-facing part of the radiation oncology team, medical physics graduate students have no training in patient communication. An introductory patient communication training for medical physics graduate students is presented here. This training exposes participants to foundational concepts and effective communication skills through a lecture and it allows them to apply these concepts through realistic simulated patient interactions. The training was conducted virtually, and eight students participated. The impact of the training was evaluated based on changes in both confidence and competence of the participants' patient communication skills. Participants were asked to fill out a survey to assess their confidence on communicating with patients before and after the training. They also underwent a simulated patient interaction pre- and postlecture. Their performance during these was evaluated by both the simulated patient actors and the participants themselves using a rubric. Each data set was paired and analyzed for significance using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test with an alpha of 0.05. Participants reported significantly higher confidence in their feeling of preparedness to interact with patients (mean = 2.38 vs. 3.88, p = 0.008), comfort interacting independently (mean = 2.00 vs. 4.00, p = 0.002), comfort showing patients they are actively listening (mean = 3.50 vs. 4.50, p = 0.005), and confidence handling challenging patient interactions (mean = 1.88 vs. 3.38, p = 0.01), after the training. Their encounter scores, as evaluated by the simulated patient actors, significantly increased (mean = 77% vs. 91%, p = 0.022). Self-evaluation scores increased, but not significantly (mean = 62% vs. 68%, p = 0.184). The difference between the simulated patient and self-evaluation scores for the postinstruction encounter was statistically significant (p = 0.0014). This patient communication training for medical physics graduate students is effective at increasing both the confidence and the competence of the participants in the subject. We propose that similar trainings be incorporated into medical physics graduate training programs prior to students entering into residency.

Indexed as

CommunicationPatient SimulationClinical CompetenceHumansPhysicsStudentscommunication trainingdirect patient careeducationmedical physics 3.0patient communication

Identifiers

PMID34708923
PMCPMC8803301
OpenAlexW3208993735

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.