Feedback conversations: First things first?

OBJECTIVE: This study explores medical students' perceptions regarding the order in which feedback is given and its impact on how that feedback is received. METHODS: Medical students were interviewed regarding their feedback experiences during medical school and preferred order in which to receive feedback. Thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts to identify salient themes in students' comments related to feedback order. RESULTS: Twenty-five students entering their second, third, and fourth years of medical school participated in the study. Students indicated that the order in which feedback was conveyed influenced their receptivity to its content, but varied in their specific order preferences. Most students indicated that they preferred feedback conversations that started with positive observations. Only the most senior students expressed a preference for feedback based on self-assessment. CONCLUSION: Feedback conversations are complicated interactions. Students' responses to feedback are influenced by a variety of factors, including the order in which feedback is delivered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educators should recognize that students' feedback needs may be influenced by a variety of factors, and should aim to tailor feedback and the order of its delivery to the learner.

Self-Assessment in Feedback Conversations: A Complicated Balance.

PURPOSE: Learner-centered feedback models encourage educators to ask learners to self-assess at the start of feedback conversations. This study examines how learners perceive and respond to self-assessment prompts during feedback conversations and assesses medical students' perceptions of and approach to self-assessment used as the basis for these conversations. METHOD: All rising second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students at a midwestern U.S. medical school were invited to participate in this study. Students participated in 1-on-1 interviews between June and August 2019 during which they were asked open-ended questions about their experiences with self-assessment and feedback during medical school. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, and comments related to self-assessment in feedback conversations were extracted. Thematic analysis was used to identify recurrent ideas and patterns within the transcripts, and all excerpts were reviewed and coded to ensure that the identified themes adequately captured the range of student responses. RESULTS: A total of 25 students participated in the study. Although some students noted improvement in their self-assessment abilities with increasing experience, no consistent gender, race, or training-level differences were found in reported attitudes or preferences. Students identified many benefits of self-assessment and generally appreciated being asked to self-assess before receiving feedback. Students had varied responses to specific self-assessment prompts, with no clear preferences for any particular self-assessment questions. Students described weighing multiple factors, such as image concerns and worries about impact on subsequent evaluations, when deciding how to respond to self-assessment prompts. CONCLUSIONS: The process by which learners formulate and share self-assessments in feedback conversations is not straightforward. Although educators should continue to elicit self-assessments in feedback discussions, they should recognize the limitations of these self-assessments and strive to create a safe environment in which learners feel empowered to share their true impressions.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Alcohol and Drug Use Outcomes Following Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) pose a significant public health concern. Previous findings, while equivocal, demonstrate screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is effective in reducing substance use and improving overall health. While race/ethnic and sex differences in SBIRT outcomes exist, racial/ethnic differences within sex groups remain unclear. The present study sought to quantify differences within race/ethnicity and sex in drug and alcohol use following SBIRT screenings. METHODS: Using health service data (N = 29,121) from a Midwestern state in four federally qualified health centers (FQHC) from 2012 to 2016, we assessed racial/ethnic and sex differences in the effect of SBIRT screening on alcohol and drug use between visits. We used McNemar's tests and multiple logistic regression to predict substance use at follow-up visits. RESULTS: We found a significant race/ethnicity by sex interaction predicting a positive alcohol prescreening (p < 0.001), precipitating a full alcohol screening, and subsequent hazardous drinking (p < 0.001) at full alcohol screening follow-up. Black males demonstrated the largest reduction in positive alcohol prescreenings at follow-up (9.24%). Patients identifying as White, Black, or Other demonstrated a reduction in hazardous drinking, though effect sizes were small and not clinically meaningful. No interactions in our drug outcome models were significant. CONCLUSION: SBIRT is useful in addressing health services equity among Black and male populations. Public health policy should support universal substance use screening and targeting interventions for underserved groups in clinical facilities likely to benefit the most. Resources should be directed to groups with the most pressing SUD treatment needs.

Stability of the alcohol use disorders identification test in practical service settings.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to explore the stability of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a clinical setting by comparing prescreening heavy drinking questions and AUDIT scores over time. Because instrument stability is equal to test-retest reliability at worst, investigating the stability of the AUDIT would help better understand patient behavior change in context and the appropriateness of the AUDIT in a clinical setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective exploratory analysis of Visit 1 to Visit 2 AUDIT stability (n=1,099; male [75.4%], female [24.6%]) from all patients with first-time and second-time records in the Iowa Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment project, October 2012 to July 7, 2015 (N=17,699; male [40.6%], female [59.4%]). RESULTS: The AUDIT demonstrated moderate stability (intraclass correlation=0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.60). In a multiple regression predicting the (absolute) difference between the two AUDIT scores, the participants' age was highly significant, t(1,092)=6.23, p<0.001. Younger participants clearly showed less stability than their older counterparts. Results are limited/biased by the observational nature of the study design and the use of clinical service data. CONCLUSION: The present findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating that the AUDIT changes are moderately dependable from Visit 1 to Visit 2 while taking into account patient drinking behavior variability. It is important to know the stability of the AUDIT for continued use in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment programming.