Purpose
The study examines changes in students’ self-assessment of their general communication (GC) and medical communication (MC) competencies, as well as perceptions of MC concepts.
Methods
Participants included 108 second year medical students enrolled at a Korean medical school studying an MC curriculum. It was divided into three sections, and participants responded to questionnaires before and after completing each section. To assess perceived GC and MC competency, items based on a 7-point Likert scale were employed; a single open-ended item was used to examine students’ perceptions of MC. Statistical analysis was conducted to gauge GC and MC competency, whereas semantic network analysis was used to investigate students’ perceptions of MC.
Results
Students perceived their GC competency to be higher than MC. Perceived MC competency differed significantly across the three sections, whereas no differences were found for GC. There were no statistically significant differences after completing the curriculum’s second and third sections; however, the vocabulary students used to describe MC concepts became more scholarly and professional. In the semantic networks, the link structure between MC-related words decreased in linearity and looseness, becoming more complex and clustered. The words ‘information’ and ‘transfer’ proved integral to students’ perceptions; likewise, ‘empathy’ and ‘communication’ became closely connected in a single community from two independent communities.
Conclusion
This study differed from prior research by conducting an in-depth analysis of changes in students’ perceptions of MC, and its findings can be used to guide curriculum development.

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences in the perception of the “good doctor” image between faculty and students, based on the competencies of the “Korean doctor's role.”
Methods
The study sample comprised 418 students and 49 faculty members in medical school. They were asked to draw images of a “good doctor,” and the competencies were then analyzed using the Draw-A-Scientist test and the social network program Netminer 4.0.
Results
Of the competency areas, “communication and collaboration with patient” and “medical knowledge and clinical skills” were the most frequently expressed, and “education and research,” “professionalism,” and “social accountability” were less commonly expressed. Images of a good doctor by the faculty focused on competencies that were directly related to current clinical doctors. Conversely, those by the students expressed various competencies equally.
Conclusion
We have provided basic data for faculties and schools to plan various education strategies to help students establish the image of a good doctor and develop the necessary competencies as physicians.