3.8 Article

Do medical trainees feel confident communicating with low health literacy patients?

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3402/jchimp.v4.22893

关键词

health literacy; patient-provider communication; medical education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Medical trainees infrequently use health literacy (HL) skills and overestimate their use of plain language and teach back skills. The aim of this study is to assess if level of training impacts the perception of medical trainees around HL knowledge and skills. Methods: A structured questionnaire consisting of 5 questions assessing the respondents' perception of their confidence in their HL knowledge, ability to identify and communicate with low HL patients, and use of relevant resources was completed by medical students and residents of 2 community-based internal medicine programs in Pennsylvania and Maryland between July 2012 and January 2013. Results: The response rate was 100% (40) for the PA program and 42% (17) for the MD residency program. All rotating medical students (17) completed the questionnaire. Out of 74 participants, less than 10% were confident of their HL knowledge and ability to identify and communicate with low HL patients. Only 1.4% (1) were confident of their ability to identify appropriate resources. There was no significant difference in communication skills (P = 0.305) and ability to identify appropriate resources (P = 0.143) across all participants irrespective of their training level. A significant improvement in HL knowledge was observed during the progression from first-year to third-year medical school (P = 0.0126) and from internship to second year of residency (P = 0.0496). Conclusion: Medical trainees perceive that they do not receive adequate training on HL knowledge and skills required to feel confident in identifying and communicating with low HL patients and identifying appropriate resources. There is a need for addressing these deficiencies via medical school and residency curricula.

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

3.8
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