OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of interpersonal communication (IPC) training on practice and patient satisfaction and to determine the acceptability of this training to providers in a developing country. DESIGN: The study used a pre-post design with treatment and control groups. Data collection methods included interaction analysis of audio-taped clinical encounters, patient exit interviews, and a self-administered questionnaire for health providers. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Interaction analysis was based on an experimental group of 24 doctors and a control group of eight with multiple observations for each provider). Exit interviews were carried out with 220 pre-test patients and 218 post-test patients. All 87 health providers who received training responded to the self-administered questionnaire. INTERVENTION: A brief in-service training programme on interpersonal communications was presented in three half-day sessions; these focused on overall socio-emotional communication, problem solving skills and counselling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The IPC intervention was associated with more communication by trained providers (mean scores of 136.6 versus 94.4; P = 0.001), more positive talk (15.93 versus 7.99; P = 0.001), less negative talk (0.11 versus 0.59; P = 0.018), more emotional talk (15.7 versus 5.5; P = 0.021), and more medical counselling (17.3 versus 11.3; P = 0.026). Patients responded by communicating more (mean scores of 113.8 versus 79.6; P = 0.011) and disclosing more medical information (54.7 versus 41.7; P = 0.002). Patient satisfaction ratings were higher for providers who had received the training and providers reported training to be relevant and useful. CONCLUSIONS: Further validation of IPC skills and simplification of assessment methods are needed if IPC is to be an area for routine monitoring and quality improvement.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of interpersonal communication (IPC) training on practice and patient satisfaction and to determine the acceptability of this training to providers in a developing country. DESIGN: The study used a pre-post design with treatment and control groups. Data collection methods included interaction analysis of audio-taped clinical encounters, patient exit interviews, and a self-administered questionnaire for health providers. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Interaction analysis was based on an experimental group of 24 doctors and a control group of eight with multiple observations for each provider). Exit interviews were carried out with 220 pre-test patients and 218 post-test patients. All 87 health providers who received training responded to the self-administered questionnaire. INTERVENTION: A brief in-service training programme on interpersonal communications was presented in three half-day sessions; these focused on overall socio-emotional communication, problem solving skills and counselling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The IPC intervention was associated with more communication by trained providers (mean scores of 136.6 versus 94.4; P = 0.001), more positive talk (15.93 versus 7.99; P = 0.001), less negative talk (0.11 versus 0.59; P = 0.018), more emotional talk (15.7 versus 5.5; P = 0.021), and more medical counselling (17.3 versus 11.3; P = 0.026). Patients responded by communicating more (mean scores of 113.8 versus 79.6; P = 0.011) and disclosing more medical information (54.7 versus 41.7; P = 0.002). Patient satisfaction ratings were higher for providers who had received the training and providers reported training to be relevant and useful. CONCLUSIONS: Further validation of IPC skills and simplification of assessment methods are needed if IPC is to be an area for routine monitoring and quality improvement.
Authors: Marie C Haverfield; Aaron Tierney; Rachel Schwartz; Michelle B Bass; Cati Brown-Johnson; Dani L Zionts; Nadia Safaeinili; Meredith Fischer; Jonathan G Shaw; Sonoo Thadaney; Gabriella Piccininni; Karl A Lorenz; Steven M Asch; Abraham Verghese; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128