ReviewPEC innovation2023
A meta-narrative review of coding tools for healthcare interactions and their applicability to written communication.
Review in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modifications to the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) coding scheme: A scoping review.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 ( 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.
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.