ArticleInternational journal of medical education2022
Doctors' experiences of earlier mandatory postgraduate communication skills training: a qualitative study.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Attitudes to Learning Doctor-Patient Communication Skills in 427 Postgraduate Doctors Using the Communication Skills Attitude Scale (CSAS) Questionnaire.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- "Bring your worst": Residents' perspectives on video review of challenging patient communication as a learning tool.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Communication in healthcare: experience of students and professionals from teaching- learning to practice in health.International journal of medical education · 2023Article
- Explicit Training in Systematic Communication Strategies: A Pilot Study Exploring the Incorporation of Communication Tools by First-Year Residents in Simulation and in Clinical Practice.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored the question: what are doctors' perspectives on and experiences with their earlier mandatory postgraduate communication skills training?
methodsThe study used a qualitative, exploratory design. We used purposeful sampling based on the principle of maximal variation to ensure different clinical perspectives. Thus, three focus groups were formed with 12 doctors who had attended mandatory postgraduate communication skills training within 1-9 years prior to the study. The doctors were from three specialties: internal medicine, oncology, and general practice. We used a semi-structured interview guide, and the focus groups were video-recorded. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data material. Through an iterative process, we identified main and sub-themes.
resultsThe first-year residency mandatory postgraduate communication skills training provided all participants with skills that had helped them in their ongoing clinical work. In addition, five dominant themes were observed: modes of use, the timing of course, experience with experiential methods, sharing challenges with peers, and need for continuous feedback and follow-up.
conclusionsDoctors value early mandatory postgraduate communication skills training even years after attending the course and request similar ongoing initiatives. Their experiences are positive, they found the timing relevant, and they used the learned skills in their ongoing clinical work, even years after the initial course. Our study indicates that more attention should be given to 'early career' postgraduate communication skills training that is tailored to specific clinical contexts, including hospital settings.
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.