715 - Discussing Medical Misinformation with Patients – A Prospective Survey Study for Medical Students

Publication Number: 2698.715

Michael Kuduk, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, United States; Anna Maria M. South, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States; Alan Hall, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, United States; Christopher Simmons, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

Background: Medical students increasingly encounter patients with questions rooted in medical misinformation, yet they may not be trained how to respond in a patient-centered, nonconfrontational way. Such responses play a key role in maintaining open communication and building rapport with patients in an environment where patients may lack trust in their providers and in the medical system.

Objective: To improve third-year medical students' ability to utilize a patient-centered counseling approach to address medical misinformation that does not undercut the patient-physician relationship.

Design/Methods: Utilizing Kolb's experiential learning cycle, we developed a 30-minute didactic session followed by a two-hour workshop taught locally across four campuses to 189 third-year medical students. The didactic defined medical misinformation, outlined its history, and provided a framework for developing nonconfrontational patient interactions that utilized the four core principles of medical ethics. The workshop included eleven unique patient cases (Figure 1), which contained medical misinformation for role play. Working in groups of two to four, all students worked through the vaccine misinformation case, followed by two additional cases with students role-playing the physician and patient roles; students then debriefed their experiences with the larger group. All students were invited to complete a voluntary pre-survey before the didactic and a post-survey after the workshop using five-point Likert scales with two sample T-tests used for statistical analysis. Didactic and workshop attendance were mandatory regardless of survey participation. We used the course's existing umbrella IRB for this study.

Results: 143 students (76%) completed the pre-survey, and 84 (44%) completed the post-survey. In the pre-survey, 93% of participants encountered patients who expressed medical misinformation, and 85% saw other physicians address medical misinformation with patients. In the post-survey, 96% of students agreed or strongly agreed that this session was helpful for their development as physicians, 95% felt it increased their understanding of medical misinformation, and 92% felt that the session was free of bias. Students showed a significant increase in their understanding of the session's learning objectives (Figure 2).

Conclusion(s): Third-year medical students commonly encounter medical misinformation. A nonconfrontational framework can increase their comfort in addressing medical misinformation in a patient-centered way.

Table 1
Medical misinformation workshop cases

Table 2
Assessment of workshop learning objectives