A better understanding of how communication skills education impacts trainees' communication skills is important for continual improvement in graduate medical education (GME). Guided by the Kirkpatrick Model, this review focused on studies that measured communication skills in either simulated or clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of experiential communication skills education on GME trainees' communication behaviors.
Five databases were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2021 using terms representing the concepts of medical trainees, communication, training, and skills and/or behaviors. Included studies had an intervention design, focused only on GME trainees as learners, used experiential methods, and had an outcome measure of communication skills behavior that was assessed by a simulated or standardized patient (SP), patient, family member, or outside observer. Studies were examined for differences in outcomes based on study design; simulated versus clinical evaluation setting; outside observer versus SP, patient, or family member evaluator; and length of training.
Seventy-seven studies were ultimately included. Overall, 54 (70%) studies reported some positive findings (i.e., change in behavior). There were 44 (57%) single-group pre-post studies, 13 (17%) nonrandomized control studies, and 20 (26%) randomized control studies. Positive findings were frequent in single-group designs (80%) and were likely in nonrandomized (62%) and randomized (55%) control trials. Positive findings were likely in studies evaluating communication behavior in simulated (67%) and clinical (78%) settings as well as in studies with outside observer (63%) and SP, patient, and family member (64%) evaluators.
This review demonstrates strong support that experiential communication skills education can impact GME trainees' communication behaviors. Marked heterogeneity in communication trainings and evaluation measures, even among subgroups, did not allow for meta-analysis or comparative efficacy evaluation of different studies. Future studies would benefit from homogeneity in curricular and evaluation measures.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,394,733
of 34,632,158 outputs
Outputs from Academic medicine
#1,783
of 7,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,311
of 545,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic medicine
#15
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,632,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 545,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
