The effect of lecture and a standardized patient encounter on medical student rape myth acceptance and attitudes toward screening patients for a history of sexual assault.

BACKGROUND: Most physicians fail to routinely screen patients for a history of sexual assault. PURPOSES: This study aimed to gauge medical student support for routinely screening patients for a history of sexual assault, examine potential barriers to screening, and determine if attitudes can be changed through educational interventions. METHODS: One hundred three 2nd-year medical students completed a survey before and after a lecture on sexual assault (response rate = 94/103 and 90/103, respectively). The questionnaire was administered a third time following a standardized patient encounter with a female rape victim (response rate = 102/103). RESULTS: Most medical students agreed that patients should be screened for sexual victimization. Students showed low levels of rape myth acceptance. Agreement with rape myths correlated with increased screening hesitancy. Statistically significant gender differences were observed. Following educational sessions, students expressed less rape myth acceptance and more comfort screening. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual assault education can diminish rape myth acceptance and promote screening for sexual assault.

Do medical students respond empathetically to a virtual patient?

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.

Comparing interpersonal interactions with a virtual human to those with a real human.

This paper provides key insights into the construction and evaluation of interpersonal simulators--systems that enable interpersonal interaction with virtual humans. Using an interpersonal simulator, two studies were conducted that compare interactions with a virtual human to interactions with a similar real human. The specific interpersonal scenario employed was that of a medical interview. Medical students interacted with either a virtual human simulating appendicitis or a real human pretending to have the same symptoms. In Study I (n = 24), medical students elicited the same information from the virtual and real human, indicating that the content of the virtual and real interactions were similar. However, participants appeared less engaged and insincere with the virtual human. These behavioral differences likely stemmed from the virtual human's limited expressive behavior. Study II (n = 58) explored participant behavior using new measures. Nonverbal behavior appeared to communicate lower interest and a poorer attitude toward the virtual human. Some subjective measures of participant behavior yielded contradictory results, highlighting the need for objective, physically-based measures in future studies.

The use of virtual patients to teach medical students history taking and communication skills.

BACKGROUND: At most institutions, medical students learn communication skills through the use of standardized patients (SPs), but SPs are time and resource expensive. Virtual patients (VPs) may offer several advantages over SPs, but little data exist regarding the use of VPs in teaching communication skills. Therefore, we report our initial efforts to create an interactive virtual clinical scenario of a patient with acute abdominal pain to teach medical students history-taking and communication skills. METHODS: In the virtual scenario, a life-sized VP is projected on the wall of an examination room. Before the virtual encounter, the student reviews patient information on a handheld tablet personal computer, and they are directed to take a history and develop a differential diagnosis. The virtual system includes 2 networked personal computers (PCs), 1 data projector, 2 USB2 Web cameras to track the user's head and hand movement, a tablet PC, and a microphone. The VP is programmed with specific answers and gestures in response to questions asked by students. The VP responses to student questions were developed by reviewing videotapes of students' performances with real SPs. After obtaining informed consent, 20 students underwent voice recognition training followed by a videotaped VP encounter. Immediately after the virtual scenario, students completed a technology and SP questionnaire (Maastricht Simulated Patient Assessment). RESULTS: All participants had prior experience with real SPs. Initially, the VP correctly recognized approximately 60% of the student's questions, and improving the script depth and variability of the VP responses enhanced most incorrect voice recognition. Student comments were favorable particularly related to feedback provided by the virtual instructor. The overall student rating of the virtual experience was 6.47 +/- 1.63 (1 = lowest, 10 = highest) for version 1.0 and 7.22 +/- 1.76 for version 2.0 (4 months later) reflecting enhanced voice recognition and other technological improvements. These overall ratings compare favorably to a 7.47 +/- 1.16 student rating for real SPs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite current technological limitations, virtual clinical scenarios could provide students a controllable, secure, and safe learning environment with the opportunity for extensive repetitive practice with feedback without consequence to a real or SP.

Evaluating evidence-based medicine skills during a performance-based examination.

PURPOSE: To measure students' competencies in evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills [clinical decision making using evidence from published literature (content) and in transmitting clinical information to patients (communication)] within the context of a performance-based examination (PBE). METHOD: In 2002-03, under the direction of a Performance-Based Examination Oversight Committee, 16 EBM queries were developed for a pair of third-year PBEs. At the last station of the PBE, the standardized patient (SP) for that station asked a clinical EBM question relating to their "disease process." Students were asked to develop an appropriate clinical question, perform a Medline search for appropriate articles, critically appraise a complete selected article, reach a conclusion to their question, and transmit the information to the SP. Each student's clinical question, search terms, selected articles, and rationale were evaluated by faculty question-writers, clinical librarians, and the EBM course director using a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being inadequate performance and 5 being superior performance. The SP evaluated the communication skills using a checklist. RESULTS: Students' performances were very good, with means of 3.7 to 4.0 in each area. Agreement between the course director and station developers was good. Seventy-five percent of the students performed adequate Medline searches. Students averaged over 93% on the performance of four communication skills. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of EBM skills can be carried out during a performance-based examination. Results can assist in developing students' skills and directing curricular efforts.