| Literature DB >> 17996053 |
Tore Gude1, Per Vaglum, Tor Anvik, Anders Baerheim, Hilde Eide, Ole B Fasmer, Peter Graugaard, Hilde Grimstad, Per Hjortdahl, Are Holen, Tone Nordoy, Helge Skirbekk, Arnstein Finset.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, we wanted to investigate the relationship between background variables, communication skills, and the bio-psychosocial content of a medical consultation in a general practice setting with a standardized patient.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17996053 PMCID: PMC2213643 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-43
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Items used in evaluating the consultation content.
| Has the student performed/addressed: | ||
| 1. Myomas (as cause of the irregular bleedings) | □ yes | □ no |
| 2. Low hemoglobin | □ yes | □ no |
| 3. Exhaustion | □ yes | □ no |
| 4. Headache | □ yes | □ no |
| 5. Vertigo | □ yes | □ no |
| 6. Sleep problems | □ yes | □ no |
| 7. Reduced appetite | □ yes | □ no |
| □ yes | □ no | |
| 9. Fear of inherited cancer | □ yes | □ no |
| □ yes | □ no | |
| 11. All responsibility for them | □ yes | □ no |
| 12. Divorced one year ago | □ yes | □ no |
| 13. Moved to a new place during the last year | □ yes | □ no |
| 14. Exploring the job situation | □ yes | □ no |
| 15. Problems with divorce | □ yes | □ no |
| Treatment plan (MAAS – 6) | □ yes | □ no |
| Information (MAAS – 9) | □ yes | □ no |
Item-list for Arizona Communication Interview Rating Scale (ACIR)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Items | (lowest score) | (highest score) | |||
| 1. Organization | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 2. Timeline | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 3. Transitional utterances | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 4. Open questioning | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 5. Smooth progress | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 6. Avoiding repetition | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 7. Summarizing | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 8. Understandable information | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 9. Documentation | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 10. Eye contact | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 11. Attentiveness | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 12. Response to concerns | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 13. Feed-back | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
| 14. Additional questions | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Frequency of the 15 consultation content items addressed during the interview.
| Consultation content items (numbers from Table 2) | How frequently addressed % |
| Exhaustion (3) | 95,5 |
| Three children (10) | 87,4 |
| Mother dead of ca. (8) | 64,9 |
| Headache (4) | 64,4 |
| Divorce (12) | 58,6 |
| Concern for own ca. (9) | 57,7 |
| Myomas (1) | 56,8 |
| Anemia (2) | 43,2 |
| Insomnia (6) | 42,3 |
| Job situation (14) | 34,2 |
| Moved (13) | 32,4 |
| Vertigo (5) | 29,7 |
| Responsibility (11) | 27,9 |
| Appetite (7) | 27,0 |
| Divorce problems (15) | 9,9 |
Levels of ACIR overall mean and consultation content total count by gender and age groups.
| ACIR overall mean | Anova F-value | Consultation content count | Anova F-value | |
| Whole sample | 3,10 (0.69) | 8,42 (2,35) | ||
| Female | 3,09 (0.70) | 0.02 n.s. | 8,46 (2,40) | 0.07 n.s. |
| Male | 3,11 (0.70) | 8,33 (2,26) | ||
| Age < 26 yrs. | 2,92 (0.63) | 0.48 n.s. | 8,08 (2,22) | 0.17 n.s. |
| Age 26–30 yrs. | 3,12 (0.68) | 8,48 (2,92) | ||
| Age > 30 yrs | 3,13 (0.91) | 8,36 (3,07) |
Standardized Beta-values from Linear Regression Analyses for Arizona overall mean as predictor for the four consultation content indices controlled for gender and age.
| Standardized Beta-values | ||||
| Illness | Psycho-social | Concern | Inform/plan | |
| Gender | 0.06 | -0.15 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Age | -0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.09 |
| ACIR | -0.11 | 0.29** | 0.45*** | 0.34** |
| Expl.var. R2 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.11 |
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, no significance = n.s.