Randomized trial assesses exam performance and anxiety in medical students, indicating limited impact of training.
Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of a short multimodal workshop, including stress-management and communication-skills training, on objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) performance and exam-related anxiety among medical students identified as needing additional support.Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial including fifth-year medical students with the lowest scores on an initial mock OSCE. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the intervention group (stress management, communication training, and OSCE simulation) or the control group. OSCE examiners were blinded to group allocation. Anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State scale (STAI-State) before the intervention (T0), after the intervention (T1; intervention group only), and before the second mock OSCE (T2). OSCE scores and anxiety levels were compared between groups, and changes in anxiety over time were analyzed among students in the intervention group.Results: A total of 109 students were included in the per-protocol analysis (49 intervention, 60 control). Global OSCE scores at T2 did not differ between groups (median [interquartile range], 13.0/20 [11.9–14.3] vs. 13.3/20 [12.0–14.6]; between-group difference, 0.08 [95% confidence interval, −0.14 to 0.29]; P=0.50). Anxiety levels were moderate, with no significant between-group difference (STAI-State score, 47 [42–50], n=8, in the intervention group vs. 44 [42–46], n=12; P=0.32). A transient increase in situational anxiety was observed immediately after training in some intervention participants. No correlation was found between anxiety and OSCE performance.Conclusion: A short multimodal workshop focused on stress management and communication training did not improve OSCE performance or OSCE-related anxiety, suggesting that single-session interventions may be insufficient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vedrenne‐Cloquet et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: