TY - JOUR
T1 - A new computer application for teaching sexual history taking to medical students
T2 - Innovation and evaluation in the UfaceMETM program
AU - Ross, Michael W.
AU - Ayers, James
AU - Schmidt, William
AU - Bugbee, Thomas W.
AU - Knight, Joan
AU - Muthyala, Brian K.
AU - Newstrom, Nicholas P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Ross et al.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Background: We developed an app (UfaceME) which simultaneously allows patient and clinician to be viewed on a split screen, then replayed and rated on a series of semantic differential scales and the ratings of the clinician of their own response to the interview, and the patient’s response, displayed on a graph. Method: We evaluated the app with trials with 14 medical student volunteers who alternated the roles of patient and clinician, using 2 randomly allocated sexual case histories. Semantic differentials for 10 adjectives were examined pre-and post-exercise. There were significant differences in 8 of the 10 adjectives. A focus group with the 14 subjects was also carried out and transcribed. The exercise was repeated with all 175 first-year medical students taking a sexual history. Results: Qualitative data indicated themes of being surprised and educated by non-verbal and verbal responses; seeing how the patient rated their responses; rating and watching discomfort; differences in clinician/patient perceptions and response; and the advantage of feedback. Quantitative data comparing self vs “patient” showed low correlations between perceptions of being “at ease”, moderate for appearing “distracted”, and high for appearing “engaged”. Conclusion: UfaceME was easily understood and used, and the opportunity to replay and rate performance on key semantic scales, and watch and assess verbal and non-verbal performance, including patient rating, provided valuable insight.
AB - Background: We developed an app (UfaceME) which simultaneously allows patient and clinician to be viewed on a split screen, then replayed and rated on a series of semantic differential scales and the ratings of the clinician of their own response to the interview, and the patient’s response, displayed on a graph. Method: We evaluated the app with trials with 14 medical student volunteers who alternated the roles of patient and clinician, using 2 randomly allocated sexual case histories. Semantic differentials for 10 adjectives were examined pre-and post-exercise. There were significant differences in 8 of the 10 adjectives. A focus group with the 14 subjects was also carried out and transcribed. The exercise was repeated with all 175 first-year medical students taking a sexual history. Results: Qualitative data indicated themes of being surprised and educated by non-verbal and verbal responses; seeing how the patient rated their responses; rating and watching discomfort; differences in clinician/patient perceptions and response; and the advantage of feedback. Quantitative data comparing self vs “patient” showed low correlations between perceptions of being “at ease”, moderate for appearing “distracted”, and high for appearing “engaged”. Conclusion: UfaceME was easily understood and used, and the opportunity to replay and rate performance on key semantic scales, and watch and assess verbal and non-verbal performance, including patient rating, provided valuable insight.
KW - Interview skills app
KW - Medical students
KW - Sexual history
KW - Training feedback
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088061329&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088061329&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2147/AMEP.S195461
DO - 10.2147/AMEP.S195461
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85088061329
SN - 1179-7258
VL - 10
SP - 333
EP - 341
JO - Advances in Medical Education and Practice
JF - Advances in Medical Education and Practice
ER -