Medical Students' Speak-Up Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Written Vignettes.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001227
Jesper Dybdal Kayser, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Michaela Kolbe, Doris Østergaard, Peter Dieckmann
{"title":"Medical Students' Speak-Up Barriers: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Written Vignettes.","authors":"Jesper Dybdal Kayser, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Michaela Kolbe, Doris Østergaard, Peter Dieckmann","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Little is known about medical students' speak-up barriers upon recognizing or becoming aware of risky or deficient actions of others. Improving our knowledge on these helps in preparing student to function in actual health care organizations. The aim was to examine medical students' perceived reasons for silence in respect to different speak-up situations (i.e., vignette content) and to test if vignette difficulty had an effect on reasons indicated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial, with text-based vignettes to investigate speak-up barriers. Vignette contents described speak-up situations that varied systematically with respect to speak-up barrier (i.e., environmental norm, uncertainty, hierarchy) and difficulty (i.e., easy, difficult). For each vignette, participants indicated which speak-up barriers they regarded as important.Descriptive analysis was performed for the study population, the numbers of barriers perceived and rating of vignette difficulty. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between barriers perceived and vignette contents, designed vignette difficulty and subjectively rated vignette difficulty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 265 students were included. The response rate was 100%. Different barriers were relevant for the different vignettes and varied in a consistent way with the theme of the vignette. Significantly more speak-up barriers were indicated for participants with the difficult version for vignette 1 (not an environmental norm) and vignette 3 (hierarchy) with odds ratio (OR) = 1.52 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI: 1.33-1.73) and OR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09-1.44). For (OR) estimates, confidence intervals were rather large.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Perceived barriers for speak-up vary consistently with the characteristics of the situation and more barriers preventing speak-up were related to the difficult versions of the vignettes.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":" ","pages":"323-329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001227","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Little is known about medical students' speak-up barriers upon recognizing or becoming aware of risky or deficient actions of others. Improving our knowledge on these helps in preparing student to function in actual health care organizations. The aim was to examine medical students' perceived reasons for silence in respect to different speak-up situations (i.e., vignette content) and to test if vignette difficulty had an effect on reasons indicated.

Methods: This study was a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial, with text-based vignettes to investigate speak-up barriers. Vignette contents described speak-up situations that varied systematically with respect to speak-up barrier (i.e., environmental norm, uncertainty, hierarchy) and difficulty (i.e., easy, difficult). For each vignette, participants indicated which speak-up barriers they regarded as important.Descriptive analysis was performed for the study population, the numbers of barriers perceived and rating of vignette difficulty. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between barriers perceived and vignette contents, designed vignette difficulty and subjectively rated vignette difficulty.

Results: A total of 265 students were included. The response rate was 100%. Different barriers were relevant for the different vignettes and varied in a consistent way with the theme of the vignette. Significantly more speak-up barriers were indicated for participants with the difficult version for vignette 1 (not an environmental norm) and vignette 3 (hierarchy) with odds ratio (OR) = 1.52 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI: 1.33-1.73) and OR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09-1.44). For (OR) estimates, confidence intervals were rather large.

Conclusions: Perceived barriers for speak-up vary consistently with the characteristics of the situation and more barriers preventing speak-up were related to the difficult versions of the vignettes.

医科学生的演讲障碍:采用书面小故事的随机对照试验。
目的:我们对医科学生在认识到或意识到他人的风险或缺陷行为时的发言障碍知之甚少。增进对这些问题的了解有助于培养学生在实际医疗机构中的工作能力。本研究旨在考察医学生在不同的开口情况下(即小故事内容)所感知的沉默原因,并检验小故事的难度是否会对所指出的原因产生影响:本研究是一项随机、对照、单盲试验,使用基于文本的小插图来调查发言障碍。小故事的内容描述了说话情境,这些情境在说话障碍(即环境规范、不确定性、等级)和难度(即容易、困难)方面存在系统性差异。对研究对象、感知到的障碍数量和小故事难度评级进行了描述性分析。我们使用逻辑回归分析来研究感知到的障碍与小插图内容、设计的小插图难度和主观评定的小插图难度之间的关联:结果:共纳入了 265 名学生。答复率为 100%。不同的障碍与不同的小故事相关,并随小故事主题的变化而变化。在小插图 1(非环境规范)和小插图 3(等级制度)的困难版本中,参与者的发言障碍明显较多,几率比(OR)=1.52,95% 置信区间(95% CI:1.33-1.73)和几率比(OR)=1.25(95% CI:1.09-1.44)。对于(OR)估计值,置信区间相当大:结论:人们认为的畅所欲言障碍随情境特征的变化而变化,更多阻碍畅所欲言的障碍与小故事的困难版本有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信