SynthesisPatient education and counseling2025
Systematic review of observational coding systems to assess patient-healthcare professional interactions.
Synthesis in Patient education and counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language model evaluation and feedback of transcribed simulated physician-patient verbal interactions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Video recording as a data collection method in vulnerable populations - methodological and ethical considerations.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Examining Nonverbal Communication in Dyadic Interactions With Virtual Humans Using an Integrated Coding System: Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSystematic coding is used to study interactions between patients and healthcare professionals from an independent observer perspective. Many coding systems are available, but an up-to-date overview is lacking. We aimed to: (1) provide a comprehensive overview of systems for systematic coding of patient-healthcare professional interactions; and describe their 2) general characteristics and development, and 3) validation and adaptation.
methodsWe systematically searched peer-reviewed empirical articles in five databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO) using variations of the following keywords: (i) patient and/or other stakeholder, (ii) healthcare professional (iii), interactions in healthcare, (iv) coding tool, and (v) development and/or validation. All titles/abstracts and full-texts were screened independently and in duplicate. Additionally, coding systems were identified through an earlier review, an open-access research database, and a forward-reference search of all included coding systems up to that point. For all eligible systems, we extracted characteristics and psychometric properties.
resultsFrom a total of 6950 identified articles from literature databases, 188 full-text articles were screened. Thirty-five articles were included from additional sources. In total, we included 124 articles describing 98 coding systems. Systems were highly variable in terms of topic (e.g., patient-centered communication, shared decision making, behavior change counseling), clinical context (e.g., oncology, pediatrics, generic), rigor of development and reporting, coding complexity, and extent of psychometric testing. Inter-rater reliability was reported for most coding systems; only few were tested for other types of reliability or for validity.
conclusionsA plethora of coding systems are available, but more systematic reporting and psychometric testing are urgently needed to enhance evidence of validity. Testing may initially focus on the most relevant and broadly applicable coding systems. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results can aid researchers in selecting the most suitable coding system for their purposes. Researchers may consider using or adapting existing systems, before developing new coding systems.
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.