The objective is to identify and assess the effectiveness of tools and methods of teaching communication skills to health professional students in undergraduate and postgraduate programs, to facilitate communication in hospitals, nursing homes and mental health institutions.
For this review, effective communication will be defined as that which enhances patient satisfaction, safety, symptom resolution, psychological status, or reduces the impact/burden of disease and/or improved communication skills within undergraduate or postgraduate students.
The review question is: What is the best available evidence on strategies to effectively teach communication skills to undergraduate and postgraduate medical, nursing and allied health students (nutrition and dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology etc)?
Searches
The search strategy is designed to find published studies in the English language, with no restriction by publication date. A three-step search strategy will be utilised in this review. The initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken using selected search terms/keywords. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Central Cochrane database, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, Proquest Theses and Dissertations and Mednar. Initial steps will be followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe articles, to determine relevance to the topic. The third stage will involve hand searching reference lists of all identified reports and articles for any additional studies.
Search terms/keywords used in the search will include: communication skills, communication skills training, student, allied health, education, medical, undergraduate, and health sciences, dietetics, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, radiation therapy, oral health, podiatry, radiography.
Articles identified in the search will be entered into Endnote X4 bibliographic software and duplicates removed.
All studies identified to be included during the initial review of the title, abstract, and index terms will be retrieved and examined to ensure relevance and that they meet inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. If the two independent reviewers disagree on whether a study should be included, a third independent reviewer will be consulted until a consensus has been reached.
Types of study to be included
This review will include all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In the absence of RCTs, pseudo-randomised studies and quasi-experimental studies will be considered. In the absence of experimental studies, observational analytical studies will be included.
Condition or domain being studied
Effective communication between the health professional and patient is increasingly being recognised as a core clinical skill. Research has identified the far reaching benefits of effective communication skills including enhanced patient satisfaction, patient safety, symptom resolution and improvements in functional and psychological status. Poor communication can result in omitted or misinterpretation of information resulting in declining health of the patient. Despite the importance of effective communication in ensuring positive outcomes for both the patient and health professional, there is concern that contemporary teaching and learning approaches do not always facilitate the development of a requisite level of communication skills, both verbal and written.
Participants/ population
The review will consider quantitative studies that include any students involved in an undergraduate or post graduate health professional degree program; regardless of degree course or year of study.
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
The review will consider interventions providing communication skills education, relating to patient health and safety within health institutions, to undergraduate and postgraduate health professional students regardless of the type, frequency, duration and timing of the intervention.
Comparator(s)/ control
In comparative studies, they were required to have tested the above review question versus other educational institutions or other methods of communication skills prescription.
Context
none
Outcome(s)
Primary outcomes
Improved patient outcomes e.g. improved nutritional status due to correct prescription of supplementation
- Reduced patient disease burden e.g. shorter consultation times
- Improved patient satisfaction e.g. satisfied with students’ listening skills
- Improved communication skills in undergraduate and postgraduate students: pre- and post-intervention assessment e.g. improved confidence, improved verbal communication such as providing advice at an appropriate level of understanding.
Due to the exploratory nature of this review, a better understanding of the outcomes to be measured will come with a more detailed review of the current literature.
Secondary outcomes
None.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Data extraction from the studies included in the review will be conducted using the standardised data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI, . Data collected will include relevant information on population characteristics including program of study, type of communication education strategy used (brief description), supporting evidence for educational strategy, effectiveness measurements and results (if applicable).
- study methods: length of intervention, length of follow-up, data collection points, inclusion criteria and method of randomisation (if applicable)
- setting: description of the setting
- participants: number of participants, gender, age, year of study and retention rates
- intervention: description of each of the interventions in the study
- comparators: description of each of the comparators used in each study
- outcomes of significance to the review question
- limitations of the study
- author conclusions
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Quantitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity before inclusion in the review, using standardised critical appraisal instruments from JBI-MAStARI. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.
Strategy for data synthesis
Quantitative papers will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using the standard Chi-square and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different study designs included in this review.
Dissemination plans
If appropriate, the findings from this systematic review will inform Joanna Briggs Institute Best Practice Information Sheets, Evidence Summaries and Consumer Information sheets
Contact details for further information
Joanna Briggs Institute Synthesis Science Unit (JBI SSU)
Synthesis Science Unit (SSU)
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Faculty of Health Sciences
The University of Adelaide
SA 5005
AUSTRALIA
jbiresearch@adelaide.edu.au
Organisational affiliation of the review
University of Newcastle Evidence Based Health Care Group: a JBI Evidence Synthesis Group
Dr Lesley MacDonald-Wicks, University of Newcastle Evidence Based Health Care Group: a JBI Evidence Synthesis Group Professor Tracy Levett-Jones2, University of Newcastle Evidence Based Health Care Group: a JBI Evidence Synthesis Group
Anticipated or actual start date
24 May 2012
Anticipated completion date
22 November 2013
Funding sources/sponsors
University of Newcastle Evidence Based Health Care Group: a JBI Evidence Synthesis Group
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Data analysis
Prospective meta-analysis
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.
