ArticleBMC medical education2025
Communication skills in pediatrics: validation of a training course for students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn pediatrics, effective communication requires empathy, active engagement with the child and their family, and a mutual sense of trust. Difficulties in communication and low confidence among medical students when interviewing pediatric patients may be associated with the lack of formal training in communication skills during undergraduate education and the limited integration of this content into medical curricula.
objectiveTo develop, validate, and implement a pediatric communication skills course for medical students, evaluating its effectiveness, acceptance, and impact on students’ self-perception and performance.
methodsThis is a methodological study developed in five stages: (1) Course design, based on leading protocols and literature on pediatric communication, and guided by gaps identified in a prior study on students’ perceptions of communication skills in pediatrics; (2) Content validation using the Delphi technique, with 11 experts evaluating the adequacy of course elements; (3) Pilot testing to adjust the course structure and teaching strategies; (4) Course implementation with 27 eighth-semester medical students, delivered as a voluntary extension activity; and (5) Evaluation using quantitative tools, and statistical analysis. All participants signed informed consent and assent forms. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee.
resultsThe course was developed based on established protocols and validated by 11 experts through the Delphi technique, achieving high content validity (CVI > 0.8). In the pilot phase, the course was well accepted, deemed relevant to its purpose (I-CVI = 1.0), and was recommended by the participants. In the subsequent administration with 27 students, all scored above 80% on the post-test. There was a significant improvement in students’ self-perceived communication skills, particularly in opening the discussion, gathering information, and understanding the patient’s and family’s perspective. Statistical analysis showed a significant association between increased confidence and the ability to interview children (p < 0.0001), caregivers (p = 0.0052) and adolescents (p = 0.0032), and communicate effectively (p = 0.0005).
conclusionsThe pediatric communication skills course developed and validated in this study proved to be an effective and well-accepted intervention to enhance medical students’ communication competencies. Expert validation ensured content quality, while implementation with students demonstrated significant gains in performance and confidence for clinical practice.
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.