IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0288474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Chandni Pattni
  • Michael Scaffidi
  • Juana Li
  • Shai Genis
  • Nikko Gimpaya
  • Rishad Khan
  • Rishi Bansal
  • Nazi Torabi
  • Catharine M Walsh
  • Samir C Grover

Abstract

Purpose: Self-assessment of a physician’s performance in both procedure and non-procedural activities can be used to identify their deficiencies to allow for appropriate corrective measures. Physicians are inaccurate in their self-assessments, which may compromise opportunities for self- development. To improve this accuracy, video-based interventions of physicians watching their own performance, an experts’ performance or both, have been proposed to inform their self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of video-based interventions targeting improved self-assessment accuracy among physicians. Materials and methods: The authors performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, EBM reviews, and Scopus databases from inception to August 23, 2022, using combinations of terms for “self-assessment”, “video-recording”, and “physician”. Eligible studies were empirical investigations assessing the effect of video-based interventions on physicians’ self-assessment accuracy with a comparison of self-assessment accuracy pre- and post- video intervention. We defined self-assessment accuracy as a “direct comparison between an external evaluator and self-assessment that was quantified using formal statistical analysis”. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted, as variable outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Results: A total of 2,376 papers were initially retrieved. Of these, 22 papers were selected for full-text review; a final 9 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Across studies, 240 participants from 5 specialties were represented. Video-based interventions included self-video review (8/9), benchmark video review (3/9), and/or a combination of both types (1/9). Five out of nine studies reported that participants had inaccurate self-assessment at baseline. After the intervention, 5 of 9 studies found a statistically significant improvement in self-assessment accuracy. Conclusions: Overall, current data suggests video-based interventions can improve self-assessment accuracy. Benchmark video review may enable physicians to improve self-assessment accuracy, especially for those with limited experience performing a particular clinical skill. In contrast, self-video review may be able to provide improvement in self-assessment accuracy for more experience physicians. Future research should use standardized methods of comparison for self-assessment accuracy, such as the Bland-Altman analysis, to facilitate meta-analytic summation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chandni Pattni & Michael Scaffidi & Juana Li & Shai Genis & Nikko Gimpaya & Rishad Khan & Rishi Bansal & Nazi Torabi & Catharine M Walsh & Samir C Grover, 2023. "Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288474
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288474
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0288474&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0288474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafdzah Zaki & Awang Bulgiba & Roshidi Ismail & Noor Azina Ismail, 2012. "Statistical Methods Used to Test for Agreement of Medical Instruments Measuring Continuous Variables in Method Comparison Studies: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-7, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0143949 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0135264 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hubert Krysztofiak & Marcel Młyńczak & Łukasz A Małek & Andrzej Folga & Wojciech Braksator, 2019. "Left ventricular mass normalization for body size in children based on an allometrically adjusted ratio is as accurate as normalization based on the centile curves method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Chinyereugo M Umemneku Chikere & Kevin Wilson & Sara Graziadio & Luke Vale & A Joy Allen, 2019. "Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0150545 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ivan Simko & Ryan J Hayes, 2018. "Accuracy, reliability, and timing of visual evaluations of decay in fresh-cut lettuce," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Kate A Timmins & Kimberley L Edwards, 2016. "Validation of Spatial Microsimulation Models: a Proposal to Adopt the Bland-Altman Method," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 9(2), pages 106-122.
    8. Carlos D. Gómez-Carmona & José Pino-Ortega & Braulio Sánchez-Ureña & Sergio J. Ibáñez & Daniel Rojas-Valverde, 2019. "Accelerometry-Based External Load Indicators in Sport: Too Many Options, Same Practical Outcome?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-13, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0288474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.