Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272386›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Development of a measurement system for complex oral information transfer in medical consultations.

J M Nordfalk, P Gulbrandsen, J Gerwing, M Nylenna, J Menichetti

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J M NordfalkHealth Services Research Unit HØKH, Akershus University Hospital, Mail Drawer 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway. jenny.maria.nordfalk@ahus.no.ORCID 0000-0002-2277-3210
P GulbrandsenHealth Services Research Unit HØKH, Akershus University Hospital, Mail Drawer 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
J GerwingHealth Services Research Unit HØKH, Akershus University Hospital, Mail Drawer 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
M NylennaInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222, Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
J MenichettiInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Akershus University Hospital, Mail Drawer 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation exchange between physician and patient is crucial to achieve patient involvement, shared decision making and treatment adherence. No reliable method exists for measuring how much information physicians provide in a complex, unscripted medical conversation, nor how much of this information patients recall. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a measurement system designed to compare complex orally provided information to patient recall.

methodsThe development of the complex information transfer measurement system required nine methodological steps. Core activities were data collection, definition of information units and the first draft of a codebook, refinement through independent coding and consensus, and reliability testing. Videotapes of physician-patient consultations based on a standardized scenario and post-consultation interviews with patients constituted the data. The codebook was developed from verbatim transcriptions of the videotapes. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using a random selection of 10% of the statements in the transcriptions.

resultsThirtyfour transcriptions of visits and interviews were collected. We developed a set of rules for defining a single unit of information, defined detailed criteria for exclusion and inclusion of relevant units of information, and outlined systematic counting procedures. In the refinement phase, we established a system for comparing the information provided by the physician with what the patient recalled. While linguistic and conceptual issues arose during the process, coders still achieved good inter-rater reliability, with intra-class correlation for patient recall: 0.723, and for doctors: 0.761. A full codebook is available as an appendix.

conclusionsA measurement system specifically aimed at quantifying complex unscripted information exchange may be a useful addition to the tools for evaluating the results of health communication training and randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationProcess Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsTape RecordingEscalation treatmentInformation exchangeMeasurement systemMedical informationMultiple sclerosisPatient recallPhysician-patient communicationQuantifying informationShared decision-makingUnit of information

Identifiers

PMID31272386
PMCPMC6610985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.