| Literature DB >> 29587740 |
Simone Alvarez1, Jobst-Hendrik Schultz2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful interaction and communication with patients is as vital for dentists as it is for physicians. Therefore, the aim of this study was the development and evaluation of an interactive, experiential training curriculum with an emphasis on communication for dual degree seekers of medicine and dentistry.Entities:
Keywords: Communication; Curriculum development; Dental studies; Experiential learning; Self-awareness
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29587740 PMCID: PMC5872386 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-018-1174-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Application of the seven teaching principals
| Principal | Application |
|---|---|
| Use a skills-based approach, as opposed to an exclusively didactic approach | Exercises during which students were engaged and challenged directly were included |
| Use clinically relevant scenarios | Scenarios that were relevant to both, dentists and physicians were included |
| Allow for self-assessment by students | Students were encouraged to assess their own performance based on videos filmed during exercises |
| Use videotaping method | This method was used mainly for the purpose of self-reflection and –assessment |
| Use simulated patients with expertise in a variety of clinical roles and in the monitoring of student performance and the delivery of feedback | Simulation patients were used specifically for feedback purposes and to give students the opportunity to experiment with the various communication techniques learned during the course |
| Use an integrated teaching team comprising health sciences staff and human sciences disciplines | The course curriculum was developed by a team of medical and psychological experts in the field of communication; however, the course was taught by one person only, a psychologist |
| Ensure small groups for optimal student learning | Maximum group size was at 14 participants |
Curriculum – Communication training for dental students
| Subject | Learning objective(s) | Instructional methods | Approximate time spent on task (in hours) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biopsychosocial Model | Learn about the importance of communication for successful physician-patient interaction and the healing process | Brief instructor input | 2 |
| Communication techniques and strategies | Learn about and practice active listening at the example of medical history taking | Brief instructor input | 4 |
| (Self-) awareness: external and (self) perception | Become aware of “self” | Brief instructor input | 5 |
| Communicating empathy and emotional awareness/understanding | Learn how to use means of non-verbal communication effectively | Brief instructor input | 3 |
| Attitude, bias and emotion-handling | Learn how personal attitudes, biases, fears, emotional reflexes, psychosocial defenses, and moods can interfere with one’s ability to arrive at an accurate diagnosis, prescribe appropriate treatment, and promote healing | Brief instructor input | 3 |
| Personal development and well-being | Become aware of the importance of personal development and well-being | Brief instructor input | 3 |
Survey results
| Item | M | SD |
|---|---|---|
| 1.) How much interest did you have initially to participate in the course? | 1.69 | .79 |
| 2.) Did the course increase your interest in the subject matter? | 1.46 | .79 |
| 3.) Has the course helped you develop more confidence in your communication skills? | 1.69 | .79 |
| 4.) How helpful did you find the practical exercises? | 1.59 | .76 |
| 5.) How much have you learned about patient-centered communication? | 1.68 | .83 |
| 6.) How helpful did you find the exercises with simulation patients? | 1.35 | .55 |
| 7.) How relevant would you rate this course for a later physician/dentist – patient interaction? | 1.65 | .79 |
| 8.) Was the trainer sensitive to student needs and concerns? | 1.15 | .53 |
| 9.) Was a good balance of student participation and trainer contribution achieved? | 1.19 | .55 |
| 10.) On a scale from 1 (very good) to 5 (very bad), how would you rate the course overall? | 1.69 | .69 |
Scale: 1 (very much) to 5 (not much at all); M mean, SD standard deviation
Code system – positive spectrum
| Code | Number of indications |
|---|---|
| Applicability of course content | 25 |
| Interactive nature of the course | 23 |
| Variety of teaching methods | 19 |
| Instructor qualities | 16 |
| Course atmosphere | 16 |
| Course flexibility | 15 |
| Opportunity to practice with SP | 13 |
Code system – negative spectrum
| Code | Number of indications |
|---|---|
| Time frame of the course is too short | 23 |
| Weekend sessions are inconvenient | 19 |
| Course would fit better during clinical part of studies | 8 |
| Not everyone was able to practice with SP | 6 |
| Course is not part of the regular dental curriculum | 6 |
| Individually shorter, but more frequent sessions | 6 |