Do medical students respond empathetically to a virtual patient?

被引:108
作者
Deladisma, Adeline M.
Cohen, Marc
Stevens, Amy
Wagner, Peggy
Lok, Benjamin
Bernard, Thomas
Oxendine, Christopher
Schumacher, Lori
Johnsen, Kyle
Dickerson, Robert
Raij, Andrew
Wells, Rebecca
Duerson, Margaret
Harper, J. Garrett
Lind, D. Scott
机构
[1] Med Coll Georgia, Dept Surg, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
[3] Med Coll Georgia, Dept Family Med, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
[4] Med Coll Georgia, Clin Skills Ctr, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
[5] Univ Florida, Coll Engn, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[6] Med Coll Georgia, Sch Nursing, Augusta, GA 30912 USA
关键词
communication skills; empathy; virtual reality; virtual patients;
D O I
10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.01.021
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Significant information exchange occurs between a doctor and patient through nonverbal communication such as gestures, body position, and eye gaze. In addition, empathy is an important trust-building element in a physician: patient relationship. Previous work validates the use of virtual patients (VP) to teach and assess content items related to history-taking and basic communication skills. The purpose of this study was to determine whether more complex communication skills, such as nonverbal behaviors and empathy, were similar when students interacted with a VP or standardized patient (SP). Methods: Medical students (n = 84) at the University of Florida (UF) and the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) underwent a videotaped interview with either a SP or a highly interactive VP with abdominal pain. In the scenario, a life-sized VP was projected on the wall of an exam room in SP teaching and testing centers at both institutions. VP and SP scripted responses to student questions were identical. To prompt an empathetic response (ie, acknowledging the patients' feelings), during the interview the VP or SP stated "I am scared; can you help me?" Clinicians (n = 4) rated student videotapes with respect to nonverbal communication skills and empathetic behaviors using a Likert-type scale with anchored descriptors. Results: Clinicians rated students interacting with SPs higher with respect to the nonverbal communication skills such as head nod (2.78 +/- .79 vs 1.94 +/- .44, P <.05), and body lean (2.97 +/- .94 vs 1.93 +/- .58, P <.05), level of immersion in the scenario (3.31 +/- .49 vs 2.26 +/- .52, P <.05), anxiety (1.16 +/- .31 vs 1.45 +/- .33, P < .05), attitude toward the patient (3.24 +/- .43 vs 2.89 +/- .36, P < .05), and asking clearer questions (3.06 +/- .32 vs 2.51 +/- .32, P < .05) compared to the VP group. The students in the SP group also had a higher empathy rating (2.75 +/- .86 vs 2.16 +/- .83, P < .05) and better overall rating (4.29 +/- 1.32 vs 3.24 +/- 1.06, P < .05) than the VP group. Empathy was positively correlated with the observed nonverbal communication behaviors. Eye contact was the most strongly correlated with empathy (r =.57, P < .001), followed by head nod (r =.55, P < .001) and body lean (r =.49, P < .001). Conclusions: Medical students demonstrate nonverbal communication behaviors and respond empathetically to a VP, although the quantity and quality of these behaviors were less than those exhibited in a similar SP scenario. Student empathy in response to the VP was less genuine and not as sincere as compared to the SP scenario. While we will never duplicate a real physician/patient interaction, virtual clinical scenarios could augment existing SP programs by providing a controllable, secure, and safe learning environment with the opportunity for repetitive practice. (C) 2007 Published by Excerpta Medica Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:756 / 760
页数:5
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]   Random comparison of 'virtual patient' models in the context of teaching clinical communication skills [J].
Bearman, M ;
Cesnik, B ;
Liddell, M .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2001, 35 (09) :824-832
[2]  
Beck Rainer S, 2002, J Am Board Fam Pract, V15, P25
[3]   Cronbach's alpha [J].
Bland, JM ;
Altman, DG .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7080) :572-572
[4]  
COHEN SM, 1991, PROG EXP TUMOR RES, V33, P21
[5]  
Dickerson R, 2006, STUD HEALTH TECHNOL, V119, P114
[6]  
Hill RW., 2003, KI, V17, P5, DOI DOI 10.1002/J.2162-6057.20041B01234.X
[7]   Evolving an immersive medical communication skills trainer [J].
Johnsen, K ;
Dickerson, R ;
Raij, A ;
Harrison, C ;
Lok, B ;
Stevens, A ;
Lind, DS .
PRESENCE-TELEOPERATORS AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS, 2006, 15 (01) :33-46
[8]   DOCTOR-PATIENT COMMUNICATION - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE [J].
ONG, LML ;
DEHAES, JCJM ;
HOOS, AM ;
LAMMES, FB .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1995, 40 (07) :903-918
[9]   An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience [J].
Pertaub, DP ;
Slater, M ;
Barker, C .
PRESENCE-TELEOPERATORS AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS, 2002, 11 (01) :68-78
[10]   Interpersonal scenarios:: Virtual ≈ real? [J].
Raij, Andrew ;
Johnsen, Kyle ;
Dickerson, Robert ;
Lok, Benjamin ;
Cohen, Marc ;
Stevens, Amy ;
Bernard, Thomas ;
Oxendine, Christopher ;
Wagner, Peggy ;
Lind, D. Scott .
IEEE VIRTUAL REALITY 2006, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, :59-+