Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Educating the clinical trainer: professional gain for the trainee? A controlled intervention study in general practice Cover

Educating the clinical trainer: professional gain for the trainee? A controlled intervention study in general practice

Open Access
|Oct 2014

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

Model based on the social learning theory according to Bandura, supplemented by the steps of apperception (by using the RoMAT) for the trainee and amplification of the role model behaviour for the trainer

40037_2014_142_Fig1_HTML.gif

Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the assessment

40037_2014_142_Fig2_HTML.gif

Table 1

Personal characteristics of the respondents

40037_2014_142_Tab1_HTML.gif
Table 2

Characteristics of GP training practices

Intervention mandatory

Intervention voluntary

Controls

Number of patients in practice (%)

 <2,000

17.9

32.0

9.4

 2,000–2,500

29.3

44.0

34.5

 >2,500

51.1

20.0

52.0

Location of practice (%)

 Village

17.9

32.0

32.2

 Small town

9.2

4.0

12.3

 City

29.3

28.0

29.8

 Big City

42.4

28.0

22.8

Trainer/trainee couples (%)

 ♂ + ♂

13.8

40.0

21.7

 ♀ + ♀

32.5

20.0

17.4

 ♀ + ♂/♂ + ♀

53.6

40.0

60.8

Table 3

Mean scores on the questionnaires of trainers and trainees; score differences between T1 and T3 on knowledge, attitude and role modelling for each group; effect sizes for the differences between intervention and control groups

Trainers

Trainees

Intervention mandatory

Controls

Intervention voluntary

Intervention mandatory

Controls

Intervention voluntary

Knowledge

  Mean (SD)

T1

16.5 (3.8)

15.9 (3.0)

16.2 (3.7)

15.1 (3.7)

15.5 (3.5)

14.9 (4.4)

T2

18.2 (4.1)

22.4 (3.6)

T3

18.0 (4.3)

15.1 (3.6)

19.0 (3.7)

15.4 (3.9)

16.9 (4.1)

16.7 (2.6)

 Mean Δa

T3–T1

1.5

0.8

2.8

0.3

1.4

2.2

 p Δa (Int-Cont)

0.00*

0.02*

 ESb

0.81

0.37

Attitude

  Mean (SD)

T1

3.3 (0.2)

3.3 (0.2)

3.3 (0.3)

3.3 (0.3)

3.3 (0.2)

3.3 (0.2)

T2

3.4 (0.2)

3.3 (0.2)

T3

3.4 (0.3)

3.3 (0.2)

3.7 (0.8)

3.3 (0.3)

3.3 (0.3)

3.5 (0.7)

 Mean Δa

T3–T1

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.2

 p Δa (Int-Cont)

0.15

0.43

 ESb

0.50

0.00

RoMAT Caring Attitude

  Mean (SD)

T1

4.3 (0.6)

4.3 (0.5)

4.4 (0.5)

T3

4.3 (0.5)

4.3 (0.5)

4.3 (0.6)

 Mean Δa

T3–T1

0.0

0.0

−0.1

 p Δa (Int-Cont)

0.87

 ESb

0.00

RoMAT Effectiveness

  Mean (SD)

T1

4.1 (0.5)

4.0 (0.6)

4.2 (0.5)

T3

4.1 (0.5)

4.1 (0.5)

4.0 (0.5)

 Mean Δa

T3–T1

0.0

0.1

−0.2

 p Δa (Int-Cont)

0.48

 ESb

0.00

Int intervention, Cont controls

aChange in score T3–T1

bEffect size = Meaniintervention − Meancontrol /SDcontrol (Hojat 2004) [40]

* Significant differences at p < 0.05

Table 4

Influence of the characteristics—personal, as a trainer and as a physician—of the GP trainers on the changes in their scores before and after the training, compared with Bonferroni’s procedure

Trainers (n = 80)

Knowledge Δa

Attitude Δa

RoMAT Δa Caring Attitude

RoMAT Δa Effectiveness

p mean

95 % CI

p mean

95 % CI

p mean

95 % CI

p mean

95 % CI

Weight change

0.03*

Bf 1<>2

0.46

0.32

0.94

 (1) <0

4.5

2.30–6.70

0.05

−0.07 to 0.16

0.23

−0.25 to 0.71

0.07

−0.21 to 0.36

 (2) =0

1.3

−0.33 to 2.90

0.11

0.04–0.18

−0.01

−0.19 to 0.16

0.20

−0.15 to 0.19

 (3) >0

1.5

−0.10 to 3.10

0.08

−0.06 to 0.13

−0.00

−0.13–0.13

0.02

−0.14 to 0.17

Years of experience as trainer

0.14

0.04*

0.25

0.05*

 (1) <6

3.0

1.50–4.40

0.12

0.05–0.20

−0.03

−0.25 to 0.18

−0.07

−0.24 to 0.10

 (2) ≥6

1.5

0.09–2.90

0.01

−0.06 to 0.08

0.10

−0.02 to 0.22

0.13

0.01–0.25

No. of GPs in practice

0.68

0.95

0.02*

Bf 1<>2

0.08

 (1) 1

2.3

0.37–4.20

0.08

−0.02 to 0.18

0.37

0.02–0.71

0.17

−0.10 to 0.45

 (2) 2

2.1

−0.00 to 4.10

0.06

−0.04 to 0.17

−0.16

−0.43 to 0.11

−0.18

−0.43 to 0.06

 (3) ≥3

0.9

−0.95 to 2.60

0.05

−0.09 to 0.19

0.01

−0.10 to 0.25

0.08

−0.11 to 0.26

 (4) Health centre

2.2

−0.04 to 4.50

0.03

−0.07 to 0.13

0.06

−0.06 to 0.18

0.12

−0.07 to 0.31

No. of patients in practice

0.81

0.30

0.04*

Bf 2<>3

0.01*

Bf 1<>3

 (1) <2000

1.5

−1.10 to 4.00

−0.02

−0.14 to 0.10

0.14

−0.04 to 0.33

0.30

0.10–0.50

 (2) 2,000–2,500

2.5

0.35–4.60

0.10

−0.00 to 0.20

0.22

−0.04 to 0.48

0.14

−0.07 to 0.35

 (3) >2,500

2.1

0.77–3.50

0.06

−0.01 to 0.13

−0.10

−0.25 to 0.05

−0.10

−0.23 to 0.03

Bf Bonferroni

aChange in score T3–T1

* Significant differences at p < 0.05

Table 5

Physicians’ attitudes towards obesity treatment [38, 39]

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

1

I believe it is necessary to educate obese patients on the health risks of obesity

1

2

3

4

5

2

Obesity is a chronic disease

1

2

3

4

5

3

I make accommodations for obese patients

1

2

3

4

5

4

Obesity is associated with serious medical conditions

1

2

3

4

5

5

Physicians should be role models by maintaining a normal weight

1

2

3

4

5

6

A 10 % reduction in body weight is sufficient to significantly improve obesity-related health complications

1

2

3

4

5

7

I would spend more time working on weight management issues if my time was reimbursed appropriately

1

2

3

4

5

8

I feel competent in prescribing weight loss programmes for obese patients

1

2

3

4

5

9

Most obese patients are well aware of the health risks of obesity

1

2

3

4

5

10

Medications to treat obesity should be limited to short-term (< 3 months) use

1

2

3

4

5

11

Most obese patients could reach a normal weight (for height) if they were motivated to do so

1

2

3

4

5

12

Most obese patients will not lose a significant amount of weight

1

2

3

4

5

13

I have negative reactions towards the appearance of obese patients

1

2

3

4

5

14

If a patient meets the appropriate criteria for obesity surgery, I would recommend an evaluation by a surgeon

1

2

3

4

5

15

Medications to treat obesity should be used chronically

1

2

3

4

5

16

I am usually successful in helping obese patients lose weight

1

2

3

4

5

17

For most obese patients, long-term maintenance of weight loss is impossible

1

2

3

4

5

18

It is acceptable to use ‘scare tactics’ to obtain compliance of the obese patient

1

2

3

4

5

19

I feel uncomfortable when examining an obese patient

1

2

3

4

5

20

It is difficult for me to feel empathy for an obese patient

1

2

3

4

5

Table 6

Role Model Apperception Tool (=RoMAT) [40]

S. no.

My clinical trainer

CA/EFa

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

1

Has excellent clinical reasoning skills

EF

1

2

3

4

5

2

Conveys empathy for patients

CA

1

2

3

4

5

3

Communicates well with patients and relatives

CA

1

2

3

4

5

4

Understands learners’ needs and is committed to the growths of learners

EF

1

2

3

4

5

5

Establishes rapport with learners

CA

1

2

3

4

5

6

Has a positive attitude towards learners

CA

1

2

3

4

5

7

Demonstrates enthusiasm for one’s work

CA

1

2

3

4

5

8

Is patient

CA

1

2

3

4

5

9

Has a positive interaction with other health care workers

CA

1

2

3

4

5

10

Makes learning exciting and stimulating

EF

1

2

3

4

5

11

Has self-confidence

EF

1

2

3

4

5

12

Is available for learners

CA

1

2

3

4

5

13

Is honest and has integrity

CA

1

2

3

4

5

14

Has leadership qualities

EF

1

2

3

4

5

15

Is aware of his/her role model status

EF

1

2

3

4

5

16

Is nice and easy to work with

CA

1

2

3

4

5

17

Is professionally competent in difficult clinical situations and able to cope with adversity

EF

1

2

3

4

5

aComponents of the RoMAT: Caring Attitude (CA) and effectiveness (EF)

Language: English
Published on: Oct 23, 2014
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2014 H. G. A. Ria Jochemsen-van der Leeuw, Nynke van Dijk, Margreet Wieringa-de Waard, Wilfried de Jong, published by Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.