4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Medical students trained in communication skills show a decline in patient-centred attitudes: An observational study comparing two cohorts during clinical clerkships

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 310-318

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.03.007

关键词

Patient-centred attitudes; Communication skills teaching; Clinical clerkships; Medical education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Literature indicates a decline in patient-centredness in medical students, especially during clinical clerkships. We examined the impact of preclinical communication skills training (CST) on students' development of patient-centred attitudes and attitudes toward CST during clerkships. Methods: We prospectively compared two cohorts before and after clerkships: one cohort (n = 48) had not received CST, whereas the other (n = 37) had received a five-year CST. We assessed the impact using five validated questionnaires. Results: Communication trained students slightly but significantly declined in patient-centred attitudes (3/4 scales) and attitudes toward CST during clerkships, whereas the scores of the untrained students remained stable (5/5 scales). Both cohorts did not differ in attitudes before clerkships. In the trained cohort, males mostly showed a sharper decline than females. In the total group (n = 85), females demonstrated higher attitude scores toward CST, and in 1/4 scales measuring patient-centred attitudes. Conclusion: This cohort study suggests that CST might make students more vulnerable to decline in attitude scores during clerkships. Practice implications: These remarkable findings, contrary to what educators would expect to result from their efforts, challenge medical education to address the new questions that are raised about the validity of the questionnaires, the impact of CST and the learning processes involved in the development of patient-centredness. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据