Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Clinical reception training plays a crucial role in developing undergraduates’ clinical thinking and competence. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical reception training conducted by standard patients (SPs) and dental simulators among undergraduate students. Materials and methods In the first week of the internship, sixty-five 5 th -year undergraduate students were divided into two groups: SP group, which received traditional theoretical training along with clinical reception training, and control group that only received traditional theoretical training. After 2 weeks and 8 weeks of training, all students were assessed with real patients by experienced prosthodontists using Mini-CEX assessment score sheets. Statistical analysis was performed using independent-samples T test or repeated-measures ANOVA ( P  < 0.05). Results The total performance of interns in the SP group was superior to that of the control group, particularly in history taking, physical examination, and doctor-patient communication ( P  < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of clinical judgement, medical record, and overall capabilities. Both groups showed improved results after 8 weeks compared to those obtained after 2 weeks. Conclusion Integrating SPs and dental simulators into clinical reception training can effectively enhance undergraduate students’ ability in history taking, physical examination, and doctor-patient communication. This training method effectively aids in mastering the reception process and is recommended for wider implementation in dental undergraduate education.

Background The American Behaviour Change Consortium (BCC) framework acknowledges patients as active participants and supports the need to investigate the fidelity with which they receive interventions, i.e. receipt. According to this framework, addressing receipt consists in using strategies to assess or enhance participants’ understanding and/or performance of intervention skills. This systematic review aims to establish the frequency with which receipt is addressed as defined in the BCC framework in health research, and to describe the methods used in papers informed by the BCC framework and in the wider literature. Methods A forward citation search on papers presenting the BCC framework was performed to determine the frequency with which receipt as defined in this framework was addressed. A second electronic database search, including search terms pertaining to fidelity, receipt, health and process evaluations was performed to identify papers reporting on receipt in the wider literature and irrespective of the framework used. These results were combined with forward citation search results to review methods to assess receipt. Eligibility criteria and data extraction forms were developed and applied to papers. Results are described in a narrative synthesis. Results 19.6% of 33 studies identified from the forward citation search to report on fidelity were found to address receipt. In 60.6% of these, receipt was assessed in relation to understanding and in 42.4% in relation to performance of skill. Strategies to enhance these were present in 12.1% and 21.1% of studies, respectively. Fifty-five studies were included in the review of the wider literature. Several frameworks and operationalisations of receipt were reported, but the latter were not always consistent with the guiding framework. Receipt was most frequently operationalised in relation to intervention content (16.4%), satisfaction (14.5%), engagement (14.5%), and attendance (14.5%). The majority of studies (90.0%) included subjective assessments of receipt. These relied on quantitative (76.0%) rather than qualitative (42.0%) methods and studies collected data on intervention recipients (50.0%), intervention deliverers (28.0%), or both (22.0%). Few studies (26.0%) reported on the reliability or validity of methods used. Conclusions Receipt is infrequently addressed in health research and improvements to methods of assessment and reporting are required.