| Title |
The effect of communication skills training on patient-pharmacist communication in pharmacy education: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-017-9791-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye Kyung Jin, Jae Hee Choi, Ji Eun Kang, Sandy Jeong Rhie |
| Abstract |
Communication skills in pharmacy education and practice are increasingly regarded as a crucial component. However, thus far, estimating of the overall communication skills training (CST) effects in a variety of outcomes is lacking. The aim of this study was to synthesize the effects of CST in pharmacy education by performing a meta-analysis of CST studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Communication and Mass Media Complete (CMMC), key journals, and bibliographic databases. The effect sizes (ESs) were extracted and pooled in random effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the study using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). From 34,737 articles, 9 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect size for CST was 0.611 (95% CI 0.327-0.895), and it was statistically significant (p = 0.000). We found based on the subgroup analyses that CST has a large effect size when it used stand-alone courses, lecture-lab based courses, video recordings, feedback, training for 2 or more semesters, hours per week ≥5 h and external assessments. For the CST effect, the effect sizes were ranked in order of confidence, knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The result of the meta-regression is that the total number of attendees is significantly negatively correlated with the effect sizes of the CST. The findings of the present meta-analysis provide evidence that CST in pharmacy education may act as an efficient way to improve the communication competency of students, and it may serve as a guide for pharmacy educators. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,060,251
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#376
of 858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,490
of 289,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 289,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.