While the traditional medical school curriculum specializes in teaching doctor–patient communication at the individual patient level, the need to train physicians to communicate science and medicine effectively to the public at large is, for the most part, ignored. With the unchecked proliferation of misinformation and disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that current and future medical professionals learn to engage in the public arena using multiple methods (written, oral, social media) across multimedia platforms to dispel misinformation and accurately educate the public. This article describes the authors’ interdisciplinary approach at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine to teaching science communication to medical students, early experiences, and future directions in this vein. The authors’ experiences show that medical students are viewed as trusted sources of health-related information, and thus, need the skills and training to tackle misinformation and that students across these learning experiences appreciated the opportunity to choose a topic of their interest according to what matters to them and their communities most. The feasibility of successfully teaching scientific communication in an undergraduate and medical education curriculum is confirmed. These early experiences support the feasibility and impact of training medical students to improve communication about science with the general public.
Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the success of multiple-behavior interventions and to identify whether the efficacy of such programs depends on the number of recommendations prescribed and the type of outcomes measured. Method: We conducted a synthesis of 136 research reports (N = 59,330) using a robust variance estimate model (Tanner-Smith et al., 2016) to study change between baseline and the first follow-up across multiple-behavior interventions, single-behavior interventions, and passive controls. Results: Multiple-behavior interventions were more efficacious than their single-behavior counterparts (multiple-behaviors: d = .44 [95% confidence interval, CI [.27, .60]); single-behavior: d = .21 [95% CI [.00, .43]),with efficacy varying based on the type of outcomes measured. Publication bias analysis revealed a small asymmetry but controlling for it did not eliminate these effects. There was a strong linear relation between the number of recommendations prescribed by an intervention and intervention efficacy (B = .07, SE = .01, p , .001), with strongest improvements observed for interventions making five or more recommendations. These patterns remained when controlling for other intervention and population characteristics. Conclusions: Multiple-behavior interventions are successful in the HIV domain and increasing the number of recommendations made in the intervention generally maximizes improvements. These findings provide insights that may guide the design and implementation of integrated interventions.
Five experiments investigated a previously unrecognized phenomenon—remembering that one enacted a mundane behavioral decision when one only intended to do so—and its psychological mechanisms. The theoretical conceptualization advanced in this research proposes that this error stems from a misattribution when an intention and a behavior are similar. Intentions and behaviors are similar when the physical aspects of the behavior resemble the intention (e.g., both require similar keystrokes) and when the behavior and the intention share mental contents (e.g., both rely on the same criterion). Experiments 1 and 2 introduced a paradigm with similar intentions and enactments and showed misreports and subsequent performance errors even when controlling for guessing. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated greater confusion when the physical involvement and mental criteria for intention and behavior were similar. Finally, Experiment 5 indicated that monitoring enactment is highly effective at reducing this error and more effective than monitoring intention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.