Table 1 Characteristics of 23 studies of educational interventions concerning history-taking skills
From: Teaching history taking to medical students: a systematic review
Source | Study design | Participants | Educational intervention | Assessment technique and measurement tool | Improvement in history-taking ability reported? | MERSQI Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instructional (traditional) approaches | ||||||
Focus scripts | ||||||
Peltier et al. 2007 [44] | Randomized, two-group post-test | n = 60 clinical medical students | Focus Scripts | Students’ write-ups were scored by a blinded rater | Yes | 12,5 |
Videotape review: Communication benchmarks | ||||||
Losh et al. 2005 [45] | Single-group post-test | n = 180 preclinical medical students | One 2-hour teaching session including an introduction of communication benchmarks and a video demonstration of short scenarios contrasting “ok” with “better” communication skills | Course evaluation questionnaire | Yes | 6,5 |
Online course | ||||||
Wiecha et al. 2003 [46] | Single-group, pre-post comparison | n = 10 preclinical medical students | Four weeks online elective course including video demonstrations, text modules, a moderated, asynchronous discussion board and written personal feedback | Questionnaire on self-reported knowledge; qualitative analysis of interviews, focus groups and student course postings. | Yes | 11 |
Experiental approaches | ||||||
Small group workshops including role-play and feedback | ||||||
Mukohara et al. 2004 [41] | Non-randomized, two-group post-test | n = 105 clinical medical students | Two-day, small group seminar, including role-play, videotape review, feedback and discussion | OSCE station; communication skills rated by two trained observers | Yes in one skill, tendency notable in 15 other skills | 11,5 |
Evans et al. 1993 [27] | Non-randomized, two-group post-test | n = 106 preclinical medical students | Programme of lectures and skills workshops | Assessment of videotaped interviews with real patients by two independent, trained raters using the HTRS | Yes | 11,5 |
Small group workshops including simulated patients | ||||||
von Lengerke et al. 2011 [51] | Single-group, pre-post comparison | n = 267 preclinical medical students | Seven 4-hour sessions in small groups, training program with lecture, self-study, (videotaped) role-play and SP interviews | Self-evaluation questionnaire on communication skills, course evaluation | Yes | 8,5 |
Ozcakar et al. 2009 [42] | Randomized, two-group, pre-post comparison | n = 52 preclinical medical students | Two videotaped SP interviews and (visual/verbal) feedback by trainer | Self-assessment, assessment by trained observers using a checklist | Yes | 13,5 |
Hulsman et al. 2009 [49] | Single-group post-test | n = 331 preclinical medical students | Seven small group sessions including SP interviews, videotape review, written self-evaluations, peer-feedback and discussion | Rating of students’ reflections by trained observers; evaluation questionnaire | Yes | 9 |
Nestel& Kidd 2003 [50] | Randomized, two-group post-test | n = 40 preclinical medical students | One 3-hour session, including SP interviews, feedback and videotape review. Small groups facilitated either by peer tutors or by medical teachers | Written course evaluation questionnaire; self-assessment; rating by SPs and trained assessors | Yes | 13 |
Yedidia et al. 2003 [52] | Randomized, two-group, pre-post comparison | n = 293 clinical medical students | Demonstration of interviewing skills, SP interviews, feedback and self-reflection | OSCE station, communication skills rated by SPs | Yes | 13,5 |
Fortin et al. 2002 [7] | Single-group post-test | n = 127 preclinical medical students | Two half-day workshops including a mini lecture, demonstration by faculty, role-play, SP interviews and discussion | Course evaluation questionnaire; free-text on what students learned from the workshop | Yes | 7 |
Utting et al. 2000 [43] | Randomized, single-blinded, three-group post-test comparison | n = 111 clinical medical students | Two 4-week basic skills courses including small group activities, discussion, role-play and SP interviews compared with a 10-week course including mainly lectures and instructions | Evaluation of videotaped SP interviews by two independent observers using IGS and CSS | No | 12,5 |
Eoaskoon et al. 1996 [48] | Non-randomized, three-group post-test | n = 115 clinical medical students | Theoretical sessions, then division into three groups: (1) SP interview and feedback, (2) role-play in front of the group and feedback, (3) role play within the group and feedback | Course evaluation, assessment of students’ interviews by tutors | Yes | 8 |
Battles et al. 1992 [47] | Two-group post-test | n = 358 preclinical medical students | Small group sessions one-half day every 2 weeks using lectures, SP interviews, feedback and discussion | OSCE using brief SP encounters and writing stations | Yes | 8 |
Kraan et al. 1990 [24] | Modified cross-sectional study | n = 563 preclinical and clinical medical students from five different academic years | Six-year undergraduate curriculum teaching communication skills using small group sessions including SP interviews, videotape review, feedback and discussion | Assessment of live SP interviews by trained observers using the MAAS | Yes | 10,5 |
Using virtual patients | ||||||
Vash et al. 2007 [53] | Randomized, two-group post-test | n = 48 clinical medical students | Fourteen 1-hour sessions in a computer lab working through virtual patients in small groups | Written examination | Yes | 11 |
Small group workshops including real patients | ||||||
Fischer et al. 2005 [54] | Single-group, pre-post comparison | n = 154 clinical medical students | 9 weekly 2-hour small group sessions including role-plays, SP interviews and videotaped interviews with real patients, each followed by feedback | Pre and post self-assessment by students using a 1–6 point scale; OSCE stations where skills were rated by SP and trained observer | Yes | 10,5 |
Windish et al. 2005 [10] | Randomized, two-group pre-post comparison | n = 121 preclinical medical students | Six weekly 3-hour small group sessions including brief lecture, short video highlighting certain skills and role-play with feedback | Assessment of student performance by trained SPs using a checklist; course evaluation | Yes | 13,5 |
Evans et al. 1996 [26] | Randomized, two-group, pre-post comparison | n = 60 clinical medical students | Training programme including lectures, comprehensive notes and workshops with role-plays, videotaping of real patients and SPs and discussions in small groups | Rating of videotaped SP interviews by trained, blinded observers using the MIRS | Yes | 12,5 |
Novack et al. 1992 [9] | Single-group, pre-post comparison | n = 60 preclinical medical students | Two initial lecture demonstrations, then 12 weekly 2-hour sessions in small groups including role-plays, interviews with patients and discussions. | Videotaped SP interviews rated by blind reviewers using ISIE; Brief questionnaire for students’ self-evaluation of progress | Yes | 14 |
Creative approaches | ||||||
Improvisational theatre | ||||||
Shochet et al. 2013 [56] | Single-group post-test | n = 38 preclinical medical students | Four weekly 2-hour sessions, improvisational theatre | Online course evaluation, qualitative analysis of students’ comments | Yes | 6,5 |
Watson 2011 [55] | Single-group post-test | n = 116 preclinical medical students | Five weekly 2-hour sessions in small groups, improvisational theatre | Qualitative analysis of course evaluations, self-report questionnaire on acquired skills | Yes | 7 |
Lego® simulation | ||||||
Harding& D’Eon 2001 [57] | Single-group, pre-post comparison | n = 57 preclinical medical students | Two-hour session including interactive lecture and a Lego simulation | Survey, information recall, qualitative analysis of focus groups | Yes | 7 |