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."