↓ Skip to main content

Teaching history taking to medical students: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
411 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
Teaching history taking to medical students: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0443-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina E. Keifenheim, Martin Teufel, Julianne Ip, Natalie Speiser, Elisabeth J. Leehr, Stephan Zipfel, Anne Herrmann-Werner

Abstract

This paper is an up-to-date systematic review on educational interventions addressing history taking. The authors noted that despite the plethora of specialized training programs designed to enhance students' interviewing skills there had not been a review of the literature to assess the quality of each published method of teaching history taking in undergraduate medical education based on the evidence of the program's efficacy. The databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, opengrey, opendoar and SSRN were searched using key words related to medical education and history taking. Articles that described an educational intervention to improve medical students' history-taking skills were selected and reviewed. Included studies had to evaluate learning progress. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Seventy-eight full-text articles were identified and reviewed; of these, 23 studies met the final inclusion criteria. Three studies applied an instructional approach using scripts, lectures, demonstrations and an online course. Seventeen studies applied a more experiential approach by implementing small group workshops including role-play, interviews with patients and feedback. Three studies applied a creative approach. Two of these studies made use of improvisational theatre and one introduced a simulation using Lego® building blocks. Twenty-two studies reported an improvement in students' history taking skills. Mean MERSQI score was 10.4 (range 6.5 to 14; SD = 2.65). These findings suggest that several different educational interventions are effective in teaching history taking skills to medical students. Small group workshops including role-play and interviews with real patients, followed by feedback and discussion, are widespread and best investigated. Feedback using videotape review was also reported as particularly instructive. Students in the early preclinical state might profit from approaches helping them to focus on interview skills and not being distracted by thinking about differential diagnoses or clinical management. The heterogeneity of outcome data and the varied ways of assessment strongly suggest the need for further research as many studies did not meet basic methodological criteria. Randomized controlled trials using external assessment methods, standardized measurement tools and reporting long-term data are recommended to evaluate the efficacy of courses on history taking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 411 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 69 17%
Student > Master 61 15%
Researcher 25 6%
Student > Postgraduate 25 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 6%
Other 91 22%
Unknown 117 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 13%
Social Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 2%
Other 50 12%
Unknown 126 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,344,926
of 24,115,737 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#145
of 3,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,610
of 278,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,115,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 278,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.