ArticlePatient education and counseling2024
Validating computer-generated measures of linguistic style matching and accommodation in patient-clinician communication.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the validity of computer-analyzed linguistic style matching (LSM) in patient-clinician communication.
methodsUsing 330 transcribed HIV patient encounters, we quantified word use with Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a dictionary-based text analysis software. We measured LSM by calculating the degree to which clinicians matched patients in the use of LIWC "function words" (e.g., articles, pronouns). We tested associations of different LSM metrics with patients' perceptions that their clinicians spoke similiarly to them.
resultsWe developed 3 measures of LSM: 1) at the whole-visit level; (2) at the turn-by-turn level; and (3) using a "rolling-window" approach, measuring matching between clusters of 8 turns per conversant. None of these measures was associated with patient-rated speech similarity. However, we found that increasing trajectories of LSM, from beginning to end of the visit, were associated with higher patient-rated speech similarity (β 0.35, CI 0.06, 0.64), compared to unchanging trajectories.
conclusionsOur findings point to the potential value of clinicians' adapting their communication style to match their patients, over the course of the visit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With further validation, computer-based linguistic analyses may prove an efficient tool for generating data on communication patterns and providing feedback to clinicians in real time.
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.