Methodological approaches applicable to patient-provider interaction analysis: A mini-review

Abstract

Online platforms and smartphone applications that facilitate patient-provider communication are examples of how digital technologies support human interaction. Telehealth enables clinical encounters when physical consultations are not possible, and evidence confirms that face-to-face and remote healthcare encounters have comparable efficacy. Furthermore, research shows that patient-provider communication and relationship influence patient outcomes. However, we lack studies on what happens during these interactions, particularly in text-messages conversations, from a linguistic or behavioral perspective. Our research methods will evolve alongside our communication channels. Currently, there is an overall preference for qualitative methods in patient-provider communication research. Some authors argue that quantitative measures (clinical measurements, questionnaires) lack an understanding of the patients' experiences, whereas qualitative approaches (interviews, focus groups) provide the full picture. Others suggest their combination to interpret interactions thoroughly. As a result, it is often difficult for a communication researcher to choose between one or more approaches. We conducted a mini-review of qualitative approaches, such as corpus linguistics and conversation analysis, as well as quantitative approaches, such as analysis of variance and temporal pattern detection, for patient-provider communication analysis. Additionally, we distinguish relevant communicative features in synchronous or live interactions, such as video-calls, and asynchronous interactions, such as non-instant messaging. We further discuss these methods' potential for combination and their applications in digital communication research. We aim to guide researchers to choose a methodology for digital interaction studies. Our recommendations are based on these approaches' ability to answer a research question, and we suggest a mixed-methods approach in future digital communication research.

A meta-narrative review of coding tools for healthcare interactions and their applicability to written communication

“…We classified each tool according to their methodology as qualitative or quantitative. We used a classification framework for patient-provider interaction analysis methods from our previous work [ 44 ]. For those that were qualitative, we further classified them according to their analysis approach, coding approach, coding dimension, and their subcategories.…”

“…

Fig. 1 Classification of tools used in dyadic interaction analysis based on their methodology [ 44 ]. Qualitative methods, such as content analysis and conversation analysis (CA), are categorized according to their analytical approach, coding approach, coding dimension, and subcategories.

…”

“…For these reasons, there is a need to expand interaction research to a teleconsultation setting and its characteristic features [ 43 ]. From both a qualitative and quantitative perspective, we have previously discussed the methodologies that are applicable to digital health interaction analysis [ 44 ]. In this article, we review the literature to identify existing coding systems for healthcare interactions.…”

Digital empathy in behaviour change interventions: A survey study on health coach responses to patient cues

“…While some rely on quantitative outcomes like clinical measurements or questionnaires, qualitative methods emphasising conversational topics or behaviours are generally preferred. 24 Pounds 25 developed an empathy appraisal approach for the expressions of empathy grounded on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), a linguistic theory developed by Halliday 26 that studies the interplay between language structure, meaning, and context. Furthermore, as described by Martin, 27 the appraisal theory within the SFL framework provides an additional lens through which linguistic resources are analysed to understand how individuals appraise and express their attitudes and emotions in discourse.…”