ArticleGMS journal for medical education2024
"Do you smoke?" - content and linguistic analysis of students' substance histories in simulated patient interviews.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs has considerable health consequences. Substance histories are often only incompletely taken in everyday clinical practice. When learning to take a medical history in medical school, one of the learning objectives is to inquire about consumption behavior. The aim of this exploratory study was therefore to examine the content and language of substance histories taken by medical students. Methods: From a simulation training of a first working day in hospital, 91 video films of medical histories were available, which advanced medical students had conducted with six patients with different consumer behavior. These interviews were verbatim transcribed and analyzed using content-structuring qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. For all substances, the reasons for the questions and the depth of the respective substance use were categorized and errors in the questions were examined. In addition, a linguistic analysis of the verbal ways in which the substances were inquired about was carried out. Results: The students most frequently asked about smoking (73.3%). In only 15.4% of the interviews were all substances asked about, in none were all substances asked about completely. A total of 112 protocol questions and 21 occasion-related questions were identified. Logical errors and double questions were found. Most of the questions were asked in a factual manner. However, questions in the categories "evasive" and "stigmatizing" were also found. Conclusion: The content-related and linguistic deficits of medical students in the collection of substance histories identified in this study should be addressed in communication courses at an early stage of undergraduate medical studies.
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.