↓ Skip to main content

Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians’ discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians’ discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Cancer, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3238-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Wuensch, Tanja Goelz, Gabriele Ihorst, Darcey D. Terris, Hartmut Bertz, Juergen Bengel, Michael Wirsching, Kurt Fritzsche

Abstract

Discussing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with cancer patients is one of the most challenging communication tasks a physician faces. Only two prior Communication Skills Trainings (CSTs) focused on RCTs in oncology have been reported. Their results demonstrated the need for further improvement. We developed and evaluated an enhanced, individually-tailored CST focused on improving physicians' communication during discussions of RCTs. The CST focused on personal learning goals derived from video pre-assessment that were addressed in a 1.5-day group workshop and one-on-one coaching sessions. Forty physicians were recruited and randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Video-recorded standardized consultations with actor-patients were utilized. As a primary outcome (1), training success was evaluated by blinded raters using a previously developed checklist. Change in checklist items was evaluated between pre- and post-training assessment and compared against control group results. As a secondary outcome (2), the physicians' feeling of confidence was assessed by a questionnaire. (1) Significant improvements in the intervention group were observed for the score on all items (p = 0.03), for the subgroup of content-specific items (p = 0.02), and for the global rating of communication competence (p = 0.04). The improvement observed for the subgroup of general communication skill items did not achieve significance (p = 0.20). (2) The feeling of confidence improved in nine out of ten domains. While the individually-tailored CST program significantly improved the physicians' discussions of RCTs, specifically related to discussion content, what remains unknown is the influence of such programs in practice on participant recruitment rates. The study was registered retrospectively in 2010/07/22 under DRKS-ID: DRKS00000492 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Psychology 8 19%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#4,152
of 8,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,564
of 310,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#58
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,345 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.