The Impact of Feedback Modalities and the Influence of Cognitive Load on Interpersonal Communication in Nonclinical Settings: Experimental Study Design

BACKGROUND: The escalating demands of modern health care systems, combined with the emotional toll of patient care, have led to an alarming increase in physician burnout rates. This burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, can hinder doctors’ ability to connect with patients effectively. Moreover, the cognitive load arising from information overload and the need for multitasking can further hinder doctors’ ability to connect with patients effectively. Understanding the complex relationship between physician burnout and cognitive load is crucial for devising targeted interventions that enhance physician well-being and promote effective physician-patient interactions. Implementing strategies to alleviate burnout and cognitive load can lead to improved health care experiences and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our study explores the interplay between physician burnout and its potential impact on interpersonal communication, particularly focusing on the role of cognitive load using a pilot study in a nonclinical setting involving nonclinical participants. METHODS: This study uses an experimental design to evaluate 3 feedback tools (haptic, visual, and postvisit summary) and measure the cognitive load they impose on nonclinical participants in a nonclinical environment. The NASA Task Load Index, a widely accepted measure of cognitive load, was used to quantify the cognitive load associated with the feedback tools. The study used a within-subject design, meaning participants experienced all 3 feedback methods. A sample of 18 nonclinical participants was selected using counterbalancing techniques. RESULTS: Postsession feedback not only enhancing performance but also mitigating the influence of cognitive load as compared with real-time feedback (haptic+visual). Participants with interview experience showed lower cognitive load levels when exposed to real-time feedback as compared with novice users. In contrast, postsession feedback was more effective for novice users. In addition, cognitive workload emerged as a moderating factor in the relationship between feedback tools and their impact on performance, particularly in terms of speaking balance and pace. This moderating effect suggests that the correlation between feedback tool efficacy and performance varies based on an individual’s cognitive load while using the feedback tool. The comparison of postfeedback with haptic feedback yielded a Z score of −3.245 and a P value of .001, while the comparison with visual feedback resulted in a Z score of −2.940 and a P value of .003. These outcomes underscore a significant disparity in the means between postsession feedback and real-time feedback (haptic+visual), with postsession feedback indicating the lowest mean score. CONCLUSIONS: Through the examination of various feedback tools, this study yields significant and insightful comparisons regarding their usability and appropriateness in nonclinical settings. To enhance the applicability of these findings to clinical environments, further research encompassing diverse participant cohorts and clinical scenarios is warranted.