2022
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01868-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using a mixed method to identify communication skills training priorities for Chinese general practitioners in diabetes care

Abstract: Background In China diabetes care is gradually shifting from secondary to primary care with great infrastructure investment and GP training. However, most GPs in China lack communication skills training, which is a huge obstacle in communication with their patients in primary care. In this study we seek to identify training priorities that is evidence-based, appropriate for the context of primary care in China, and that meet the real needs of both GPs and people with diabetes. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A predetermined list of discussion topics was tailored from a comprehensive literature review [20], by researchers trained at ERNST (the European researchers' network working on SV) training schools and validated with the following: (i) circumstances and causes of incidents, (ii) patient and (iii) pharmacist reactions and outcomes, as well as (iv) the support received during incidents (Appendix 1).…”
Section: Identifying a List Of Topics For Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A predetermined list of discussion topics was tailored from a comprehensive literature review [20], by researchers trained at ERNST (the European researchers' network working on SV) training schools and validated with the following: (i) circumstances and causes of incidents, (ii) patient and (iii) pharmacist reactions and outcomes, as well as (iv) the support received during incidents (Appendix 1).…”
Section: Identifying a List Of Topics For Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The collective outcomes across all groups were determined by aggregating individual choices, using mean ranking scores as standardised weights for each item. The mean ranking scores = (Σ frequency × weight) / number of participants who ranked the item 14 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%