Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Sep 8:3:100211.
doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100211. eCollection 2023 Dec 15.

A meta-narrative review of coding tools for healthcare interactions and their applicability to written communication

Elena Rey Velasco  1   2 , Hanne Sæderup Pedersen  1 , Ditte Hjorth Laursen  2 , Timothy Skinner  1
Affiliations
Review

A meta-narrative review of coding tools for healthcare interactions and their applicability to written communication

Elena Rey Velasco et al. PEC Innov. .

Abstract

Background: Although healthcare professionals (HCP) undergo communicative skills training, these are sometimes unsatisfactory for patients (empathy, discussion managing). Existing coding tools overlook the interaction and patients' responses. Meanwhile, remote consultations are redefining communication channels. While some researchers adapt those tools to telehealth, few investigate written interactions.

Objective: To identify and evaluate coding tools for healthcare interactions and examine their suitability for written interactions.

Methods: We conducted a meta-narrative review in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus databases up to December 2022 with Communicati* AND Human* AND Linguistic* AND Professional-Patient Relation* as search terms. We extracted data regarding methodology, unit of analysis (UoA), coding categories, reliability, strengths, weaknesses, and inter-rater reliability (IRR).

Results: We identified 11 mixed-methods tools. Qualitatively, coding dimension was focused (n = 6) or comprehensive (n = 5). Main quantitative methods were descriptive statistics (n = 4) and cross-tabulations (n = 4). Main UoA was utterance (n = 7). Relevant categories were processes (n = 4), content (n = 3), emotional expressions and responses (n = 3), and grammatical format (n = 2). IRR ranged from 0.68 to 0.85 for coding categories.

Conclusion: Despite similarities, category terminologies were inconsistent, one-sided, and mostly covered conversation topics and behaviours. A tool with emotional and grammar categories could bridge the gap between a speaker's intended meaning and the receiver's interpretation to enhance patient-HCP communication. Furthermore, we need empirical research to determine whether these tools are suitable for written interactions.

Innovation: This review presents a comprehensive and state-of-the-art overview of healthcare interactions' coding tools and identifies their barriers. Our findings will support communication researchers in selecting appropriate coding tools for evaluating health interactions and enhancing HCP training.

Keywords: Communication; Empathy; Linguistics; Patient-provider interaction; Telehealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Classification of tools used in dyadic interaction analysis based on their methodology [44]. Qualitative methods, such as content analysis and conversation analysis (CA), are categorized according to their analytical approach, coding approach, coding dimension, and subcategories. Quantitative methods, including Roter's Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) and sequential analysis methodologies (lag-based, lag-independent, and time-based), are classified along with their respective subcategories.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram of the meta-narrative review search.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Street R.L., Jr., Makoul G., Arora N.K., Epstein R.M. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295–301. - PubMed
    1. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee opinion no. 587: effective patient-physician communication. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):389–393. - PubMed
    1. Kourakos M., Fradelos E., Papathanasiou I., Saridi M., Kafkia T. Communication as the basis of care for patients with chronic diseases. Am J Nurs Spec Issue: Nurs Educ Res. 2017;7:7–12.
    1. Drossman D.A., Ruddy J. Improving patient-provider relationships to improve health care. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(7):1417–1426. - PubMed
    1. Street R.L., De Haes H.C.J.M. Designing a curriculum for communication skills training from a theory and evidence-based perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(1):27–33. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources