Cited by 23Musculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationInnovations in Medical EducationSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare

The impact of trained patient educators on musculoskeletal clinical skills attainment in pre-clerkship medical students

Open access
Oswald, Anna E, Bell, Mary J, Wiseman, Jeffrey, Snell, Linda·2011·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the high burden of musculoskeletal (MSK) diseases, few generalists are comfortable teaching MSK physical examination (PE) skills. Patient Partners® in Arthritis (PP®IA) is a standardized patient educator program that could potentially supplement current MSK PE teaching. This study aims to determine if differences exist in MSK PE skills between non-MSK specialist physician and PP®IA taught students. METHODS: Pre-clerkship medical students attended 2-hour small group MSK PE teaching by either non-MSK specialist physician tutors or by PP®IA. All students underwent an MSK OSCE and completed retrospective pre-post questionnaires regarding comfort with MSK PE and interest in MSK. RESULTS: 83 students completed the OSCE (42 PP®IA, 41 physician taught) and 82 completed the questionnaire (42 PP®IA, 40 physician taught). There were no significant differences between groups in OSCE scores. For all questionnaire items, post-session ratings were significantly higher than pre-session ratings for both groups. In exploratory analysis PP®IA students showed significantly greater improvement in 12 of 22 questions including three of five patient-centred learning questions. CONCLUSIONS: PP®IA MSK PE teaching is as good as non-MSK specialist physician tutor teaching when measured by a five station OSCE and provide an excellent complementary resource to address current deficits in MSK PE teaching.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6920-11-65

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The duration of the preparation ranged from substantial training sessions of 100 hours in total to the majority of programmes providing solely written information or a single orientation session of 1-1.5 hours.

    “The duration of the preparation ranged from substantial training sessions of 100 hours in total42 to the majority of programmes providing solely written information or a single orientation session of 1–1.5 hours.24 30 32 39 43 49 52 57”
  • No difference was observed in increased structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores when comparing sessions delivered by trained patient educators with sessions delivered by rheumatology staff together with a passive patient undergoing examination and sessions with a non-MSK specialist physician.

    “No difference was observed in increased structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores when comparing sessions delivered by trained patient educators with sessions delivered by rheumatology staff together with a passive patient undergoing examination54 62 and sessions with a non-MSK specialist physician.42”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oswald, A. E., Bell, M. J., Wiseman, J., & Snell, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Oswald, Anna E
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2011-09-23
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
65-65
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976940941
Cited by
23
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University of Ottawa
  • McGill University
  • University of Alberta
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Keywords
patient educators, standardized patients, preclinical medical students, clinical skills assessment, OSCE
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Musculoskeletal System, Patient Participation, Physical Examination, Physician-Patient Relations, Quebec, Students, Medical, Teaching

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