4.5 Review

Doctor-patient communication skills training in mainland China: A systematic review of the literature

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 98, Issue 1, Pages 3-14

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.09.012

Keywords

Doctor-patient communication skills; Training; Physician; Medical student; China; Systematic review

Funding

  1. New York Chinese Medical Board (CMB) [G16917342]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of studies on doctor patient communication skills training (CST) for medical students and physicians in mainland China. Methods: We retrieved articles from six electronic databases, and searched additional eligible papers by checking reference lists. Chinese or English-language studies focused on CST and implemented in mainland China were applied to the pre-determined criteria. Articles included were further reviewed under the following categories: participant; training strategy; assessment; and outcome. Results: 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. 90% of the CST improved trainees' communication skills using a strategy which included a didactic component combined with practical rehearsal and feedback. The duration of training varied substantially. A lack of enhancement in empathy, and the use of open-ended questions were reported. 83% of the assessment instruments were self-designed and most lacked reliability and validity testing. Only two of the included studies evaluated patient satisfaction. Conclusions: The majority of included studies attained statistically significant improvements. Chinese doctors and medical students' communication skills can be enhanced through CST. Practice implications: Future studies in China should place stronger emphasis on the development of training strategies, validation of the assessment instruments, and evaluation of patient satisfaction affected by CST. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available