Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement
Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. T...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Leonie N. C. Visser [verfasserIn] Nadine Bol [verfasserIn] Marij A. Hillen [verfasserIn] Mathilde G. E. Verdam [verfasserIn] Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes [verfasserIn] Julia C. M. van Weert [verfasserIn] Ellen M. A. Smets [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: BMC Medical Research Methodology - BMC, 2003, 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; pages:12 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ011058935 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ011058935 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230310033110.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a R5-920 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Leonie N. C. Visser |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Patient-provider communication | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Video-vignettes design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Analogue patients | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Camera viewpoint | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Introduction | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Engagement | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine (General) | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Nadine Bol |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Marij A. Hillen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Mathilde G. E. Verdam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Julia C. M. van Weert |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ellen M. A. Smets |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t BMC Medical Research Methodology |d BMC, 2003 |g 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 |w (DE-627)326643818 |w (DE-600)2041362-2 |x 14712288 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2018 |g number:1 |g pages:12 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2018 |e 1 |h 12 | ||
| author_variant |
l n c v lncv n b nb m a h mah m g e v mgev h c j m d h hcjmdh j c m v w jcmvw e m a s emas |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14712288:2018----::tdigeiacmuiainihievgetsrnoiesuynovrainivdointenrdcinomtncm |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
R |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Leonie N. C. Visser verfasserin aut Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) Nadine Bol verfasserin aut Marij A. Hillen verfasserin aut Mathilde G. E. Verdam verfasserin aut Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes verfasserin aut Julia C. M. van Weert verfasserin aut Ellen M. A. Smets verfasserin aut In BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC, 2003 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 14712288 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 12 |
| spelling |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Leonie N. C. Visser verfasserin aut Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) Nadine Bol verfasserin aut Marij A. Hillen verfasserin aut Mathilde G. E. Verdam verfasserin aut Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes verfasserin aut Julia C. M. van Weert verfasserin aut Ellen M. A. Smets verfasserin aut In BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC, 2003 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 14712288 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 12 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Leonie N. C. Visser verfasserin aut Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) Nadine Bol verfasserin aut Marij A. Hillen verfasserin aut Mathilde G. E. Verdam verfasserin aut Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes verfasserin aut Julia C. M. van Weert verfasserin aut Ellen M. A. Smets verfasserin aut In BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC, 2003 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 14712288 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 12 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Leonie N. C. Visser verfasserin aut Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) Nadine Bol verfasserin aut Marij A. Hillen verfasserin aut Mathilde G. E. Verdam verfasserin aut Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes verfasserin aut Julia C. M. van Weert verfasserin aut Ellen M. A. Smets verfasserin aut In BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC, 2003 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 14712288 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 12 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Leonie N. C. Visser verfasserin aut Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) Nadine Bol verfasserin aut Marij A. Hillen verfasserin aut Mathilde G. E. Verdam verfasserin aut Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes verfasserin aut Julia C. M. van Weert verfasserin aut Ellen M. A. Smets verfasserin aut In BMC Medical Research Methodology BMC, 2003 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 (DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 14712288 nnns volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2018 1 12 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 |
| sourceStr |
In BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(2018), 1, Seite 12 volume:18 year:2018 number:1 pages:12 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement Medicine (General) |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Leonie N. C. Visser @@aut@@ Nadine Bol @@aut@@ Marij A. Hillen @@aut@@ Mathilde G. E. Verdam @@aut@@ Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes @@aut@@ Julia C. M. van Weert @@aut@@ Ellen M. A. Smets @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
326643818 |
| id |
DOAJ011058935 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ011058935</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310033110.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ011058935</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leonie N. C. Visser</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patient-provider communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Video-vignettes design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Analogue patients</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Camera viewpoint</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Introduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Engagement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nadine Bol</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marij A. Hillen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mathilde G. E. Verdam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Julia C. M. van Weert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ellen M. A. Smets</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Medical Research Methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2018), 1, Seite 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">14712288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
Leonie N. C. Visser |
| spellingShingle |
Leonie N. C. Visser misc R5-920 misc Patient-provider communication misc Video-vignettes design misc Analogue patients misc Camera viewpoint misc Introduction misc Engagement misc Medicine (General) Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| authorStr |
Leonie N. C. Visser |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)326643818 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
R5-920 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
14712288 |
| topic_title |
R5-920 Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement Patient-provider communication Video-vignettes design Analogue patients Camera viewpoint Introduction Engagement |
| topic |
misc R5-920 misc Patient-provider communication misc Video-vignettes design misc Analogue patients misc Camera viewpoint misc Introduction misc Engagement misc Medicine (General) |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc R5-920 misc Patient-provider communication misc Video-vignettes design misc Analogue patients misc Camera viewpoint misc Introduction misc Engagement misc Medicine (General) |
| topic_browse |
misc R5-920 misc Patient-provider communication misc Video-vignettes design misc Analogue patients misc Camera viewpoint misc Introduction misc Engagement misc Medicine (General) |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
326643818 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)326643818 (DE-600)2041362-2 |
| title |
Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ011058935 (DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 |
| title_full |
Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| author_sort |
Leonie N. C. Visser |
| journal |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| journalStr |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
12 |
| author_browse |
Leonie N. C. Visser Nadine Bol Marij A. Hillen Mathilde G. E. Verdam Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes Julia C. M. van Weert Ellen M. A. Smets |
| container_volume |
18 |
| class |
R5-920 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Leonie N. C. Visser |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| callnumber |
R5-920 |
| title_auth |
Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| abstract |
Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Nadine Bol Marij A. Hillen Mathilde G. E. Verdam Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes Julia C. M. van Weert Ellen M. A. Smets |
| author2Str |
Nadine Bol Marij A. Hillen Mathilde G. E. Verdam Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes Julia C. M. van Weert Ellen M. A. Smets |
| ppnlink |
326643818 |
| callnumber-subject |
R - General Medicine |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3 |
| callnumber-a |
R5-920 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T18:15:31.494Z |
| _version_ |
1803582734601289728 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ011058935</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310033110.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ011058935</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leonie N. C. Visser</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients’ engagement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background Video vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians’ communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants’ engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants’ engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation. Methods Introduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient’s situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants’ electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction. Results The audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, η partial 2 $$ {\eta}_{partial}^2 $$ = 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement. Conclusions Our findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient’s emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Patient-provider communication</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Video-vignettes design</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Analogue patients</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Camera viewpoint</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Introduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Engagement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nadine Bol</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marij A. Hillen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mathilde G. E. Verdam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Julia C. M. van Weert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ellen M. A. Smets</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Medical Research Methodology</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2018), 1, Seite 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326643818</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041362-2</subfield><subfield code="x">14712288</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f6d02a588f2845c7832f4783ba59a2c1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0472-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400193 |