ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2013
Unannounced standardized patient assessment of the roter interaction analysis system: the challenge of measuring patient-centered communication.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- User-centered design of a patient-generated health data mobile application for primary care visits for older adults with chronic pain.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Modifications to the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) coding scheme: A scoping review.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- Development of a validated assessment tool for medical students using simulated patients: an 8-year panel survey.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Clinician documentation of patient centered care in the electronic health record.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Development of an unannounced standardized patient protocol to evaluate opioid use disorder treatment in pregnancy for American Indian and rural communities.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2021Article
- Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: The G-PACER.Medical science educator · 2018Article
- Verbal communication of students with high patient-physician interaction scores in a clinical performance examination assessed by standardized patients.Korean journal of medical education · 2017Article
- Relationship between Teach-back and patient-centered communication in primary care pediatric encounters.Patient education and counseling · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite wide-spread endorsement of patient-centered communication (PCC) in health care, there has been little evidence that it leads to positive change in health outcomes. The lack of correlation may be due either to an overestimation of the value of PCC or to a measurement problem. If PCC measures do not capture elements of the interaction that determine whether the resulting care plan is patient-centered, they will confound efforts to link PCC to outcomes.
objectiveTo evaluate whether one widely used measure of PCC, the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), captures patient-centered care planning.
designRIAS was employed in the coding of unannounced standardized patient (USP) encounters that were scripted so that the failure to address patient contextual factors would result in an ineffective plan of care. The design enabled an assessment of whether RIAS can differentiate between communication behavior that does and does not result in a care plan that takes into account a patient's circumstances and needs.
participantsEight actors role playing four scripted cases (one African American and one Caucasian for each case) in 399 visits to 111 internal medicine attending physicians. MAIN MEASURES: RIAS measures included composites for physician utterance types and (in separate models) two different previously applied RIAS patient-centeredness summary composites. The gold standard comparison measure was whether the physician's treatment plan, as abstracted from the visit note, successfully addressed the patient's problem. Mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between RIAS measures and USP measured performance, controlling for a variety of design features. KEY
resultsNone of the RIAS measures of PCC differentiated encounters in which care planning was patient-centered from care planning in which it was not.
conclusionsRIAS, which codes each utterance during a visit into mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, does not differentiate between conversations leading to and not leading to care plans that accommodate patients' circumstances and needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.