Anthony Jerant1, Brent Hanson2, Richard L Kravitz3, Daniel J Tancredi4, Emily Hanes5, Sanjeet Grewal6, Rimaben Cabrera7, Peter Franks8. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: afjerant@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: bwhanson@ucdavis.edu. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: rlkravitz@ucdavis.edu. 4. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: djtancredi@ucdavis.edu. 5. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: enhess@ucdavis.edu. 6. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. 7. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: rpcabrera@ucdavis.edu. 8. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, USA. Electronic address: pfranks@ucdavis.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare how coder ratings of standardized patient (SP) visit recordings and SP ratings of the visits detect primary care physician (PCP) training in self-efficacy enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). METHODS: Analyses of data from 50 PCPs who participated in a randomized controlled trial of SEE IT training, which led to increased SEE IT use during three SP visits 1-3 months post-intervention. Untrained SPs rated SEE IT use post-visit. Subsequently, three trained coders generated a consensus SEE IT rating from visit audio recordings. SPs and coders were blinded to provider study arm, and coders to SP ratings. RESULTS:SP and coder ratings were correlated (r=0.62). In detecting the intervention effect, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.84) for consensus coder and SP ratings, respectively (difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04-0.11; z=1.04, p=0.30). CONCLUSION:SP ratings were not significantly different from coder ratings of SP visit recordings in detecting PCP SEE IT training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If similar findings are observed in larger studies, it would suggest a greater role for SP ratings in detecting provider interviewing skills training, given the relative simplicity, low cost, and non-intrusiveness of the approach.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare how coder ratings of standardized patient (SP) visit recordings and SP ratings of the visits detect primary care physician (PCP) training in self-efficacy enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT). METHODS: Analyses of data from 50 PCPs who participated in a randomized controlled trial of SEE IT training, which led to increased SEE IT use during three SP visits 1-3 months post-intervention. Untrained SPs rated SEE IT use post-visit. Subsequently, three trained coders generated a consensus SEE IT rating from visit audio recordings. SPs and coders were blinded to provider study arm, and coders to SP ratings. RESULTS:SP and coder ratings were correlated (r=0.62). In detecting the intervention effect, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.84) for consensus coder and SP ratings, respectively (difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04-0.11; z=1.04, p=0.30). CONCLUSION:SP ratings were not significantly different from coder ratings of SP visit recordings in detecting PCP SEE IT training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If similar findings are observed in larger studies, it would suggest a greater role for SP ratings in detecting provider interviewing skills training, given the relative simplicity, low cost, and non-intrusiveness of the approach.
Authors: Barbara L Brody; Anne-Catherine Roch-Levecq; Anthony C Gamst; Kellie Maclean; Robert M Kaplan; Stuart I Brown Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-11
Authors: Nancy M Salbach; Nancy E Mayo; Sylvie Robichaud-Ekstrand; James A Hanley; Carol L Richards; Sharon Wood-Dauphinee Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: K R Lorig; D S Sobel; A L Stewart; B W Brown; A Bandura; P Ritter; V M Gonzalez; D D Laurent; H R Holman Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Anthony Jerant; Melissa Lichte; Richard L Kravitz; Daniel J Tancredi; Elizabeth M Magnan; Andrew Hudnut; Peter Franks Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-07-02
Authors: Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Michèle Rivard; Eveline Hudon; Danielle Saucier; Martine Remondin; Robert Favreau Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Vincent Gosselin Boucher; Simon Bacon; Brigitte Voisard; Anda I Dragomir; Claudia Gemme; Florent Larue; Sara Labbé; Geneviève Szczepanik; Kimberly Corace; Tavis Campbell; Michael Vallis; Gary Garber; Codie Rouleau; Jean G Diodati; Doreen Rabi; Serge Sultan; Kim Lavoie Journal: JMIR Med Educ Date: 2022-06-24