BACKGROUND: Effective communication is increasingly recognised as a core clinical skill. Many health and social care professionals, however, do not feel adequately trained in communicating and in handling interpersonal issues that arise in the care of patients with cancer. AIM: The aim of this paper was to assess the effectiveness of different training methods used in communication training courses for health professionals. METHOD: We searched six computerised databases and augmented this with follow-up of references and grey (unpublished) literature. We included all studies evaluating communication training and assessed methodological quality according to the standard grading system of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Data on author, year, setting, objectives, study design and training methods were extracted and compared in tabular format. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies potentially assessing communication training were identified. Sixteen papers were included evaluating 13 interventions. Four were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (grade a); the others were grade III. Eleven interventions trained health professionals; two trained medical students. Interventions for training in communication skills were characterised by the variety of communication approaches used and a diversity of methods. They were applied to health professionals with very different roles, served different purposes and evaluated a variety of outcome measures: behavioural assessments, patient outcomes and professionals' self-report. CONCLUSIONS: The best results are to be expected from a training programme that is carried out over a longer period of time. Learner-centred programmes using several methods combining a didactic component focusing on theoretical knowledge with practical rehearsal and constructive feedback from peers and skilled facilitators proved to be very effective. Small groups encouraged more intensive participation. Training in communication for both medical or nursing students and senior health professionals is advisable.
BACKGROUND: Effective communication is increasingly recognised as a core clinical skill. Many health and social care professionals, however, do not feel adequately trained in communicating and in handling interpersonal issues that arise in the care of patients with cancer. AIM: The aim of this paper was to assess the effectiveness of different training methods used in communication training courses for health professionals. METHOD: We searched six computerised databases and augmented this with follow-up of references and grey (unpublished) literature. We included all studies evaluating communication training and assessed methodological quality according to the standard grading system of the Clinical Outcomes Group. Data on author, year, setting, objectives, study design and training methods were extracted and compared in tabular format. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies potentially assessing communication training were identified. Sixteen papers were included evaluating 13 interventions. Four were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (grade a); the others were grade III. Eleven interventions trained health professionals; two trained medical students. Interventions for training in communication skills were characterised by the variety of communication approaches used and a diversity of methods. They were applied to health professionals with very different roles, served different purposes and evaluated a variety of outcome measures: behavioural assessments, patient outcomes and professionals' self-report. CONCLUSIONS: The best results are to be expected from a training programme that is carried out over a longer period of time. Learner-centred programmes using several methods combining a didactic component focusing on theoretical knowledge with practical rehearsal and constructive feedback from peers and skilled facilitators proved to be very effective. Small groups encouraged more intensive participation. Training in communication for both medical or nursing students and senior health professionals is advisable.
Authors: W F Baile; A P Kudelka; E A Beale; G A Glober; E G Myers; A J Greisinger; R C Bast; M G Goldstein; D Novack; R Lenzi Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Laura M Cecere; Lynn F Reinke; Linda Ganzini; Edmunds M Udris; Brianna R Moss; Chris L Bryson; J Randall Curtis; David H Au Journal: Chest Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Rathi Mahendran; Joanne Chua; Chao Xu Peh; Haikel A Lim; Emily N K Ang; Siew Eng Lim; Ee Heok Kua Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Anthony L Back; Dee W Ford; Lois Downey; Sarah E Shannon; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Erin K Kross; Lynn F Reinke; Laura C Feemster; Barbara Edlund; Richard W Arnold; Kim O'Connor; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H Jolanda van Rijssen; Antonius J M Schellart; Johannes R Anema; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 3.295