School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science, Faculty of Clinical & Biomedical University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
© 2020, Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: AML, AU, SS, AM. Data curation: AM. Formal analysis: AM. Funding acquisition: not applicable. Methodology: AML, AM. Project administration: AML, AU, SS, AM. Visualization: AM. Writing–original draft: AML, AM. Writing–review & editing: AML, AU, SS, AM.
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding
None.
Data availability
Data files are available from Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/6H1ZR6
Dataset 1. Data file & data dictionary (Excel format 2016).
Details | |
---|---|
Structure of PAT sessions | |
Year 1 | Session 1: Students are introduced to patients through as a meet and greet, and different styles of questioning and how to overcome barriers are taught. |
Session 2: The students carry out activities with the patients regarding active listening, questioning, and consultations. | |
Session 3: Students participate in a Q&A session around medicine storage at home, medicine compliance, and clinical trials. | |
Year 2 | Students cover 8 body systems and have one PAT session for each body system throughout the year. These sessions involve a patient discussing a condition linked to the relevant body conditions as single morbidities. |
Delivery of PAT sessions | All PAT sessions are delivered in a similar format. The students are set pre-work, for example to research and think about the types of questions they would ask a patient with the condition that will be covered. In the classroom, students are split into groups (typically 4–6 students) and work with a patient for 20 minutes. Depending on what year group/session they are on, the students are set themes to cover and gain further information about from patients. The student groups then rotate, allowing the students to meet different patients with different experiences. Sessions vary in the patients present depending on topics covered and availability; however, all patients receive the same training. |
How often PAT sessions are delivered | In year 1, students have 3 sessions, one in the first semester and 2 in the second semester. In year 2, students have 10 sessions, 5 in each semester. All sessions are around 2 hours in length. |
Characteristic | No. (%) |
---|---|
Gender | |
Female | 41 (60.3) |
Male | 27 (39.7) |
Age group (yr) | |
>20 | 25 (36.8) |
19 | 21 (30.8) |
20 | 11 (16.2) |
18 | 11 (16.2) |
Ethnic group | |
Asian/Asian British | 50 (73.6) |
White | 9 (13.2) |
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British | 5 (7.4) |
Chinese or other ethnic groups | 2 (2.9) |
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups | 2 (2.9) |
Year | |
First | 45 (66.2) |
Second | 23 (33.8) |
Variable | Value |
---|---|
Statistics for scale | |
No. of items | 9 |
Mean±standard deviation | 38.93±4.053 |
Variance | 16.427 |
Item means | |
Mean | 4.325 |
Min–max (range) | 3.176–6.176 (3.000) |
Min/max | 1.944 |
Variance | 0.628 |
Item variances | |
Mean | 0.512 |
Min–max (range) | 0.297–1.133 (0.836) |
Min/max | 3.817 |
Variance | 0.066 |
Item total statistics | Scale mean if item deleted | Scale variance if item deleted | Corrected item-total correlation | Squared multiple correlation | Cronbach’s α if item deleted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
On a scale of 1 (least satisfactory) to 5 (most satisfactory) how would you rate the teaching session? | 34.74 | 12.078 | 0.671 | 0.543 | 0.767 |
Which aspect of the session did you find the most worthwhile? | 35.75 | 12.280 | 0.404 | 0.255 | 0.819 |
How much did you learn from the session about the care of the patient? | 35.04 | 12.640 | 0.612 | 0.464 | 0.776 |
The involvement of a patient in the session helped me to gain a greater understanding of the patients’ problems | 34.47 | 13.536 | 0.593 | 0.437 | 0.783 |
Would you like to see more of this type of session? | 32.75 | 17.175 | -0.231 | 0.168 | 0.856 |
Learning from expert patients helped to contextualize my learning | 34.71 | 12.808 | 0.730 | 0.668 | 0.766 |
Learning from expert patients helped to improve my communication & consultation skills | 34.53 | 13.238 | 0.585 | 0.540 | 0.781 |
My confidence when talking to patients was improved by the patient encounter | 34.75 | 12.907 | 0.738 | 0.597 | 0.766 |
The expert patient generated interest and enthusiasm during the session | 34.68 | 12.939 | 0.596 | 0.392 | 0.779 |
Statement | No. (%) |
---|---|
How much did you learn from the session about the care of the patient? | |
A lot | 36 (52.9) |
Adequate amount | 17 (25.0) |
A great deal | 13 (19.1) |
Very little | 2 (3.0) |
The involvement of a patient in the session helped me to gain a greater understanding of the patients’ problems | |
Strongly agree | 34 (50.0) |
Agree | 31 (45.6) |
Unsure | 3 (4.4) |
Would you like to see more of this type of session | |
Yes | 61 (89.7) |
Not sure | 5 (7.4) |
No | 2 (2.9) |
Learning from expert patients helped to contextualize my learning | |
Agree | 42 (61.8) |
Strongly agree | 21 (30.9) |
Unsure | 4 (5.9) |
Disagree | 1 (1.4) |
Learning from expert patients helped to improve my communication & consultation skills | |
Agree | 32 (47.1) |
Strongly agree | 32 (47.1) |
Unsure | 3 (4.4) |
Disagree | 1 (1.4) |
My confidence when talking to patients was improved by the patient encounter | |
Agree | 42 (61.8) |
Strongly agree | 19 (27.9) |
Unsure | 7 (10.3) |
The expert patient generated interest and enthusiasm during the session | |
Agree | 34 (50.0) |
Strongly agree | 26 (38.2) |
Unsure | 7 (10.3) |
Disagree | 1 (1.5) |
Statement | No. of male (%) | No. of female (%) | Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | Strength of association (phi) | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The involvement of a patient in the session helped me to gain a greater understanding of the patients’ problems | 2.879 (0.627–13.223) | 0.170 | 0.250 | ||
Agree | 22 (81.5) | 38 (92.7) | |||
Disagree | 5 (18.5) | 3 (7.3) | |||
Learning from expert patients helped to contextualize my learning | 0.356 (0.038–3.369) | -0.113 | 0.641 | ||
Agree | 26 (96.3) | 37 (90.2) | |||
Disagree | 1 (3.7) | 4 (9.8) | |||
Learning from expert patients helped to improve my communication & consultation skills | 1.560 (0.206–11.798) | 0.053 | 1.000 | ||
Agree | 25 (92.6) | 39 (95.1) | |||
Disagree | 2 (7.4) | 2 (4.9) | |||
My confidence when talking to patients was improved by the patient encounter | 0.576 (0.103–3.208) | -0.077 | 0.694 | ||
Agree | 25 (92.6) | 36 (87.8) | |||
Disagree | 2 (7.4) | 5 (12.2) | |||
The expert patient generated interest and enthusiasm during the session | 2.879 (0.627–13.223) | 0.170 | 0.250 | ||
Agree | 22 (81.5) | 38 (92.7) | |||
Disagree | 5 (18.5) | 3 (7.3) |
Statement | No. of year 1 (%) | No. of year 2 (%) | Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) | Strength of association (phi) | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The involvement of a patient in the session helped me to gain a greater understanding of the patients’ problems | 0.833 (0.181–3.843) | -0.280 | 1.000 | ||
Agree | 40 (88.9) | 20 (87.0) | |||
Disagree | 5 (11.1) | 3 (13.0) | |||
Learning from expert patients helped to contextualize my learning | 0.310 (0.048–2.004) | -0.156 | 0.327 | ||
Agree | 43 (95.6) | 20 (87.0) | |||
Disagree | 2 (4.4) | 3 (13.0) | |||
Learning from expert patients helped to improve my communication & consultation skills | 0.488 (0.064–3.712) | -0.085 | 0.599 | ||
Agree | 43 (95.6) | 21 (91.3) | |||
Disagree | 2 (4.4) | 2 (8.7) | |||
My confidence when talking to patients was improved by the patient encounter | 0.065 (0.133–3.188) | -0.065 | 0.681 | ||
Agree | 41 (91.1) | 20 (87.0) | |||
Disagree | 4 (8.9) | 3 (13.0) | |||
The expert patient generated interest and enthusiasm during the session | 0.833 (0.181–3.843) | -0.028 | 1.000 | ||
Agree | 40 (88.9) | 20 (87.0) | |||
Disagree | 5 (11.1) | 3 (13.0) |
PAT, Patient as teacher.
Reliability coefficient for 9 items: α=0.809; standardized item α=0.813.
P-values are expressed as Pearson’s chi-square (X2) or Fisher exact test; statistically significant P<0.005. Phi shows the strengths of the association between 2 variables (-1≤ phi ≤+1). Agree includes strongly agree and agree. Disagree includes strongly disagree, disagree, and unsure.
P-values are expressed as Pearson’s chi-square (X2) or Fisher exact test; statistically significant P<0.005. Phi shows the strengths of the association between 2 variables (-1≤ phi ≤+1). Agree includes strongly agree and agree. Disagree includes strongly disagree, disagree, and unsure.