Cited by 304Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

The effects of two continuing medical education programs on communication skills of practicing primary care physicians

Levinson, Wendy, Roter, Debra·1993·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate and compare the effects of two types of continuing medical education (CME) programs on the communication skills of practicing primary care physicians.Participants Fifty-three community-based general internists and family practitioners practicing in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area and 473 of their patients.Method For the short program (a 4 1/2-hour workshop), 31 physicians were randomized to either the intervention or the control group. In the long program (a 2 1/2-day course), 20 physicians participated with no randomization. A research assistant visited all physicians' offices both one month before and one month after the CME program and audiotaped five sequential visits each time. Data were based on analysis of the content and the affect of the interviews, using the Roter Interactional Analysis Scheme.Results Based on both t-test analysis and analysis of covariance, no effect on communication was evident from the short program. The physicians enrolled in the long program asked more open-ended questions, more frequently asked patients' opinions, and gave more biomedical information than did the physicians in the short program. Patients of the physicians who attended the long program tended to disclose more biomedical and psychosocial information to their physicians. In addition, there was a decrease in negative affect for both patient and physician, and patients tended to demonstrate fewer signs of outward distress during the visit.Conclusion This study demonstrates some potentially important changes in physicians' and patients' communication after a 2 1/2-day CME program. The changes demonstrated in both content and affect may have important influences on both biologic outcome and physician and patient satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02600146

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levinson, W., & Roter, D.
Affiliations
  • Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
1993-06
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
318-324
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2018187603
Cited by
304
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
20.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
continuing medical education, physician-patient communication, primary care physicians, family practitioners, general internists, communication skills training, patient disclosure, open-ended questions, patient distress, physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Communication, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Tape Recording, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review