ArticleBMC medical education2025
How do medical students make sense of internal and external feedback to enhance their Dutch communication skills?
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twelve tips for teaching medical communication skills in a second language.BMC medical education · 2026Review
- Time to Make Sense: Doctors' and Students' Experiences of Difficult Feedback.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Evolving Perceptions of Feedback in Medical Communication Training.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFeedback is crucial in medical education for developing communication skills and fostering comprehensive learning. Despite its importance, medical students often face challenges in effectively leveraging feedback. This study investigates how students perceive and make sense of internal and external feedback in a 2nd language (L2) medical Dutch course.
methodsSixteen third-year international medical students (mean age = 23) participated in a medical Dutch course that included six structured sessions. Each session encompassed a briefing, simulated patient consultations (SPCs), and a debriefing. The curriculum integrated internal feedback from self-reflections and external feedback from peers, teachers, and simulated patients. Data were gathered through a students' feedback perception survey and semi-structured interviews and analyzed via inductive thematic analysis.
resultsSurvey data indicated a trend where the preference, satisfaction, and trust in external feedback were higher than those for internal feedback. However, both types of feedback were regarded as equally effective in facilitating learning progress. Through thematic analysis, we identified five crucial themes that show how students perceive and make sense of various forms of feedback: proactive engagement with feedback, critically analyzing and utilizing the exchange in dialogues and discussions, self-reflection and progress tracking, value from diverse perspectives, and moment-specific and actionable feedback.
conclusionsThis study emphasizes the vital roles of internal and external feedback in enhancing medical Dutch communication skills among medical students. Internal feedback encourages self-reflection and growth, essential for complex medical communications, while external feedback provides clear, specific and supportive guidance and experience from teachers, simulated patients and peers. These feedback mechanisms together improve students' skills in medical Dutch communication, leading to better doctor-patient interactions. Future research should focus on adapting these feedback strategies across diverse educational settings to further support the development of medical L2 communication skills in global medical contexts.
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.