1. Standardized Vaccine-Hesitant Patients in the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Vaccine Communication Training
- Author
-
John Parrish-Sprowl, Daniel M. Arnold, Carrie Bohnert, Matthew D. Kinney, Shanna M. Barton, Sara Multerer, Gary S. Marshall, Patricia M. Purcell, Aaron W. Calhoun, Kristina A. Bryant, Victoria A. Statler, and Heather M. Felton
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Parents ,2019-20 coronavirus outbreak ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ,education ,Kentucky ,Pediatrics ,Double-Blind Method ,Patient Education as Topic ,Internal consistency ,Medicine ,Humans ,Structured communication ,Physician-Patient Relations ,business.industry ,Communication ,Infant ,Internship and Residency ,Control subjects ,Patient Simulation ,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health ,Vaccine refusal ,Physical therapy ,Female ,Clinical Competence ,Communication skills ,Vaccination Hesitancy ,business - Abstract
To determine if training residents in a structured communication method elicits specific behaviors in a laboratory model of interaction with vaccine-hesitant parents.Standardized patients portraying vaccine-hesitant parents were used to assess the effectiveness of training in the Announce, Inquire, Mirror, Secure (AIMS) Method for Healthy Conversations. Blinded pediatric residents were pseudorandomized to receive AIMS or control training and underwent pre- and post-training encounters with blinded standardized patients. Encounters were assessed by blinded raters using a novel tool. Participant confidence and standardized patient evaluations of the participants' general communication skills were assessed.Ratings were available for 27 AIMS and 26 control participants. Statistically significant increases in post-training scores (maximum = 30) were detected in AIMS, but not in control, participants (median, 21.3 [IQR, 19.8-24.8] vs 18.8 [IQR, 16.9-20.9]; P .001). Elements (maximum score = 6) with significant increases were Inquire (0.67 [IQR, 0-1.76] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P .001); Mirror (1.33 [IQR, 0 to 2] vs -0.33 [IQR, -0.92 to 0]; P .001) and Secure (0.33 [IQR, 0 to 1.67] vs -0.17 [IQR, -0.67 to 0.33]; P = .017). Self-confidence increased equally in both groups. Standardized patients did not detect a difference in communication skills after training and between groups. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the assessment tool were modest.Standardized patients proved useful in studying the effectiveness of structured communication training, but may have been limited in their ability to perceive a difference between groups owing to the predetermined encounter outcome of vaccine refusal. AIMS training should be studied in real-world scenarios to determine if it impacts vaccine acceptance.
- Published
- 2021