↓ Skip to main content

Do medical students and young physicians assess reliably their self-efficacy regarding communication skills? A prospective study from end of medical school until end of internship

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Do medical students and young physicians assess reliably their self-efficacy regarding communication skills? A prospective study from end of medical school until end of internship
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0943-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tore Gude, Arnstein Finset, Tor Anvik, Anders Bærheim, Ole Bernt Fasmer, Hilde Grimstad, Per Vaglum

Abstract

This prospective study from end of medical school through internship investigates the course and possible change of self- reported self-efficacy in communication skills compared with observers' ratings of such skills in consultations with simulated patients. Sixty-two medical students (43 females) from four Norwegian universities performed a videotaped consultation with a simulated patient immediately before medical school graduation (T1) and after internship (internal medicine, surgery and family medicine, half a year each - T2). Before each consultation, the participants assessed their general self-efficacy in communication skills. Trained observers scored the videos and applied a well-validated instrument to rate the communication behaviour. Results from the two assessment methods were correlated at both time points and possible differences from T1 to T2 were explored. A close to zero correlation between self-efficacy and observed communication skills were found at T1. At T2, participants' self-efficacy scores were inversely correlated with levels of observed skills, demonstrating a lack of concordance between young physicians' own assessment of self-efficacy and observers' assessment. When dividing the sample in three groups based on the observers' scores (low <1/3-, medium 1/3 to 2/3-, high competence >2/3), the group of male physicians showed higher levels of self-efficacy than females in all the three performance groups at T1. At T2, those having a high performance score yielded a low self-efficacy, regardless of gender. The lack of positive correlations between self-efficacy assessment and expert ratings points to limitations in the applicability of self-assessment measures of communication skills. Due to gender differences, groups of female and male physicians should be investigated separately. Those obtaining high-performance ratings from observers, through the period of internship, may become more conscious of how demanding clinical communication with patients may be. This insight may represent a potential for growth, but could in some physicians represent too much of a self-critical attitude. Active supervision of young physicians throughout internship is important in order to help physicians to be more aware of their strengths and weaknesses, in order to gain increased mastery in the art of doctoring.

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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Master 16 12%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 34 25%
Unknown 41 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 38%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 45 33%
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 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,431,953
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#3,178
of 3,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,256
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#43
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.