Cargando…

The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

When studying the patient perspective on communication, some studies rely on analogue patients (patients and healthy subjects) who rate videotaped medical consultations while putting themselves in the shoes of the video-patient. To describe the rationales, methodology, and outcomes of studies using...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Vliet, Liesbeth M., van der Wall, Elsken, Albada, Akke, Spreeuwenberg, Peter M. M., Verheul, William, Bensing, Jozien M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8
_version_ 1782246993487200256
author van Vliet, Liesbeth M.
van der Wall, Elsken
Albada, Akke
Spreeuwenberg, Peter M. M.
Verheul, William
Bensing, Jozien M.
author_facet van Vliet, Liesbeth M.
van der Wall, Elsken
Albada, Akke
Spreeuwenberg, Peter M. M.
Verheul, William
Bensing, Jozien M.
author_sort van Vliet, Liesbeth M.
collection PubMed
description When studying the patient perspective on communication, some studies rely on analogue patients (patients and healthy subjects) who rate videotaped medical consultations while putting themselves in the shoes of the video-patient. To describe the rationales, methodology, and outcomes of studies using video-vignette designs in which videotaped medical consultations are watched and judged by analogue patients. Pubmed, Embase, Psychinfo and CINAHL databases were systematically searched up to February 2012. Data was extracted on: study characteristics and quality, design, rationales, internal and external validity, limitations and analogue patients’ perceptions of studied communication. A meta-analysis was conducted on the distribution of analogue patients’ evaluations of communication. Thirty-four studies were included, comprising both scripted and clinical studies, of average-to-superior quality. Studies provided unspecific, ethical as well as methodological rationales for conducting video-vignette studies with analogue patients. Scripted studies provided the most specific methodological rationales and tried the most to increase and test internal validity (e.g. by performing manipulation checks) and external validity (e.g. by determining identification with video-patient). Analogue patients’ perceptions of communication largely overlap with clinical patients’ perceptions. The meta-analysis revealed that analogue patients’ evaluations of practitioners’ communication are not subject to ceiling effects. Analogue patients’ evaluations of communication equaled clinical patients’ perceptions, while overcoming ceiling effects. This implies that analogue patients can be included as proxies for clinical patients in studies on communication, taken some described precautions into account. Insights from this review may ease decisions about including analogue patients in video-vignette studies, improve the quality of these studies and increase knowledge on communication from the patient perspective. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3475831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34758312012-11-09 The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis van Vliet, Liesbeth M. van der Wall, Elsken Albada, Akke Spreeuwenberg, Peter M. M. Verheul, William Bensing, Jozien M. J Gen Intern Med Reviews When studying the patient perspective on communication, some studies rely on analogue patients (patients and healthy subjects) who rate videotaped medical consultations while putting themselves in the shoes of the video-patient. To describe the rationales, methodology, and outcomes of studies using video-vignette designs in which videotaped medical consultations are watched and judged by analogue patients. Pubmed, Embase, Psychinfo and CINAHL databases were systematically searched up to February 2012. Data was extracted on: study characteristics and quality, design, rationales, internal and external validity, limitations and analogue patients’ perceptions of studied communication. A meta-analysis was conducted on the distribution of analogue patients’ evaluations of communication. Thirty-four studies were included, comprising both scripted and clinical studies, of average-to-superior quality. Studies provided unspecific, ethical as well as methodological rationales for conducting video-vignette studies with analogue patients. Scripted studies provided the most specific methodological rationales and tried the most to increase and test internal validity (e.g. by performing manipulation checks) and external validity (e.g. by determining identification with video-patient). Analogue patients’ perceptions of communication largely overlap with clinical patients’ perceptions. The meta-analysis revealed that analogue patients’ evaluations of practitioners’ communication are not subject to ceiling effects. Analogue patients’ evaluations of communication equaled clinical patients’ perceptions, while overcoming ceiling effects. This implies that analogue patients can be included as proxies for clinical patients in studies on communication, taken some described precautions into account. Insights from this review may ease decisions about including analogue patients in video-vignette studies, improve the quality of these studies and increase knowledge on communication from the patient perspective. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer-Verlag 2012-06-15 2012-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3475831/ /pubmed/22700392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. Open Access was funded by the NWO.
spellingShingle Reviews
van Vliet, Liesbeth M.
van der Wall, Elsken
Albada, Akke
Spreeuwenberg, Peter M. M.
Verheul, William
Bensing, Jozien M.
The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort validity of using analogue patients in practitioner–patient communication research: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8
work_keys_str_mv AT vanvlietliesbethm thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vanderwallelsken thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT albadaakke thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT spreeuwenbergpetermm thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT verheulwilliam thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bensingjozienm thevalidityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vanvlietliesbethm validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vanderwallelsken validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT albadaakke validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT spreeuwenbergpetermm validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT verheulwilliam validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bensingjozienm validityofusinganaloguepatientsinpractitionerpatientcommunicationresearchsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis