4.7 Article

Preventive and other interactional skills of general practitioners, surgeons, and physicians: Perceived competence and endorsement of postgraduate training

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 73-81

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0781

Keywords

communication skills; preventive medicine; survey; self-efficacy; training; medical practitioners; surgeons

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Perceived competencies and support for formal postgraduate training across a range of preventive and other interactional skills were examined in three medical groups. Methods. All eligible final year students and recent graduates of the three major Australian medical colleges (n = 767) were mailed a questionnaire examining communication skills in four domains: preventive, educational, therapeutic, and general. Results. Overall consent rate was 45%. For most items, at least one-third of each group reported low competence, On preventive items, low competence ratings ranged from 5 to 39% in general practice, 38 to 67% in surgery, and 33 to 51% in the speciality physician group, Significant intergroup differences occurred on eight competence items. Agreement with training on preventive topics ranged from 80 to 91% in general practice, 48 to 69% in surgery, and 72 to 82% in the specialty physician group. On all 11 training items where significant differences occurred, the general practice group reported the highest level and the surgeon group the lowest level of endorsement for formal training and assessment. Conclusions. Substantial proportions in the general practice, surgery, and the physician specialty report lack, of competence in common interactional skills. There were high levels of support for formal training in preventive and other interactional skills. The strong endorsement supports the development of effective, tailored interactional skills training programs. (C) 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available