4.1 Article

Medical Students' Acquisition of Adolescent Interview Skills after Coached Role Play

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpag.2017.11.003

关键词

Adolescent medicine education; Medical education; Coached role play; HEADS interview

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objective: To develop and evaluate an educational activity designed to teach the adolescent Home, Education and employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/depression, and Safety (HEADS) examination. Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, and Main Outcome Measures: Participants were third-year medical students in their pediatric clerkships. Students received an article on the HEADS interview and attended an adolescent medicine educational session. The session included individualized goal-setting and coached role play. Students' skills in doing a HEADS interview were evaluated through a standardized patient encounter (SPE) with a checklist and a retrospective pre- and post-test survey. The SPE checklist was used to assess whether the students included questions in 6 key areas of a HEADS interview. Results: One hundred fifty-two students participated. During the SPE, 90% of students queried the adolescent's home life, 91% education, 82% activities, 84% drug/substance abuse, 95% sexual history, and 61% symptoms of depression. Pre- and postintervention data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis Test and showed a statistically significant difference in the students' ability to list key topic areas of the HEADS exam (P <.001) and to use the skills needed for an adolescent interview using the HEADS exam (P <.001). Conclusion: After an introduction to the HEADS examination, most students covered almost all of the topic areas of this screening interview during a SPE. Only three-fifths of the students, however, included questions about symptoms of depression. Coached role play with goal-setting facilitated effective learning of this approach to adolescent interviewing.

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

4.1
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