Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Comparing the impact of video feedback and group discussion on patient education performance among medical interns: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strengthening community-based doula and clinician partnerships through implementation and dissemination science approaches: a mixed-methods pilot study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective patient education is critical in managing chronic diseases, improving patient outcomes, and reducing healthcare burdens. This study aimed to compare the impact of video feedback (VFB) and group discussion (GD) training on the patient education performance of medical interns.
methodIn this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 78 medical interns at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (2019) were assigned to VFB or GD groups using closed-envelope randomization. Both groups attended six 2-hour workshops with standardized scenarios. Performance was assessed using the Objective Structured Long Examination Record (OSLER) checklist before (OSLER1) and one month after the intervention (OSLER2). Primary outcome was the difference in mean post-intervention OSLER scores. Analyses included Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests.
resultSeventy-six interns completed the study. No significant differences in demographic features (p > 0.05) or baseline scores (p = 0.21). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in OSLER scores after the intervention (P < 0.001). The GD group's mean OSLER1 score increased from 4.38 ± 1.04 to 8.43 ± 1.85 (p < 0.001), while the VFB group's scores rose from 5.10 ± 2.09 to 17.44 ± 1.10 (p < 0.001). The VFB group significantly outperformed the GD group in post-intervention scores (p < 0.001), with a mean score improvement of 12.33 ± 2.53 compared to 4.05 ± 2.05 in the GD group (p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth training methods improved interns' patient education performance, with VFB showing substantially greater gains. Video feedback may be a more effective approach for enhancing communication skills in clinical training. Further research is warranted to assess long-term impact and broader applicability.
trial registrationA clinical trial number is not applicable.
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.