ArticleBMC medical education2022
Optimizing simulated interviews and feedback to maximize medical students' self-efficacy in real time.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trajectories and Adaptive Recalibration of Self-Efficacy in Brazilian Medical Students: A Longitudinal Study With Implications for Educational Support.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
- The use of adolescent standardized patients to teach psychosocial risk assessment and its impact on medical student self‑efficacy.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Standardized patient training for neurological examination: providing precise, technique-oriented feedback.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Effect of the post-learning period on the accuracy and self-efficacy of measuring the joint range of motion.Journal of physical therapy science · 2023Article
- A Phenomenological Exploration of Experiences Related to Learning Styles Among Undergraduate Medical Students in a Barbadian Medical School.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-efficacy is crucial in improving medical students' communication skills. This study aims to clarify where medical students' self-efficacy is greatest following an interview with a simulated patient and subsequent feedback.
methodsA total of 162 medical students (109 men, 53 women) in their fourth or fifth year at a university in Japan participated in this study. The degree of self-efficacy in medical interviewing was measured before and after a medical interview with a simulated patient, and after the subsequent feedback session.
resultsANOVA analysis revealed that self-efficacy for medical interviews was higher after both the interview and the feedback session than before the interview. Among all three time points, self-efficacy was highest after the feedback session.
conclusionsFeedback following a simulated interview with a simulated patient is important to improve the self-efficacy of medical students when learning medical interviewing skills.
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.