Skip to main content

Table 2 Demographic Features, Self-Rated Competence in Medical Interviewing, and Importance of the Medical Interview to Practice for 58 New Internal Medicine Faculty

From: Views of new internal medicine faculty of their preparedness and competence in physician-patient communication

Characteristics

No. of faculty

Self-rated competence in medical interviewing, score, average ± SD*

Self-rated importance of medical interview to practice, score, average ± SD*

Matched pairs mean difference between self-rated importance of medical interview and competence in interviewing (95% CI)

P value

All participants

58

7.7 ± 1.2

9.4 ± 1.0

1.7 (1.4–2.0)

<.001

Sex

     

   Male

37

7.5 ± 1.2

9.2 ± 1.1

1.7 (1.3–2.1)

<.001

   Female

21

8.0 ± 1.0

9.6 ± 0.6

1.6 (1.1–2.2)

<.001

   P value

 

.115

.180

  

Age, y

     

   ≤ 40

43

7.7 ± 1.0

9.2 ± 1.0

1.5 (1.1–1.8)

<.001

   >40

14

7.5 ± 1.6

9.8 ± 0.6

2.3 (1.5–3.0)

<.001

   P value

 

.870

.059

  

Specialty

     

   Generalist

18

8.1 ± 1.1

9.5 ± 0.9

1.4 (1.0–1.8)

<.001

   Specialist

40

7.5 ± 1.1

9.3 ± 1.0

1.8 (1.4–2.2)

<.001

   P value

 

.042§

.293

  

Years since training//

     

   ≤ 1

22

7.3 ± 1.4

9.0 ± 1.3

1.7 (1.0–2.3)

<.001

   >1

35

7.9 ± 1.0

9.6 ± 0.6

1.6 (1.3–2.0)

<.001

   P value

 

.032

.039

  

Benefit from additional communication training?

     

   Yes

33

7.5 ± 1.2

9.4 ± 0.8

1.9 (1.5–2.3)

<.001

   Maybe or no

25

8.0 ± 1.1

9.3 ± 1.1

1.4 (0.8–1.9)

<.001

   P value

 

.162

.860

  
  1. *Ten-point Likert scale (eg, 1 = not competent, 10 = highly competent).
  2. Wilcoxon signed rank test.
  3. Wilcoxon rank sum test.
  4. §Not significant after ANOVA (see text).
  5. //One participant did not indicate age or years since training.
  6. Twenty-four participants answered "maybe" and 1 answered "no."