RESUMO
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 (n = 6) or comprehensive (n = 5). Main quantitative methods were descriptive statistics (n = 4) and cross-tabulations (n = 4). Main UoA was utterance (n = 7). Relevant categories were processes (n = 4), content (n = 3), emotional expressions and responses (n = 3), and grammatical format (n = 2). IRR ranged from 0.68 to 0.85 for coding categories. 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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle-related diseases are among the leading causes of death and disability. Their rapid increase worldwide has called for low-cost, scalable solutions to promote health behavior changes. Digital health coaching has proved to be effective in delivering affordable, scalable programs to support lifestyle change. This approach increasingly relies on asynchronous text-based interventions to motivate and support behavior change. Although we know that empathy is a core element for a successful coach-user relationship and positive patient outcomes, we lack research on how this is realized in text-based interactions. Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is a linguistic theory that may support the identification of empathy opportunities (EOs) in text-based interactions, as well as the reasoning behind patients' linguistic choices in their formulation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether empathy and SFL approaches correspond and complement each other satisfactorily to study text-based communication in a health coaching context. We sought to explore whether combining empathic assessment with SFL categories can provide a means to understand client-coach interactions in asynchronous text-based coaching interactions. METHODS: We retrieved 148 text messages sent by 29 women who participated in a randomized trial of telecoaching for the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and postnatal weight loss. We conducted a pilot study to identify users' explicit and implicit EOs and further investigated these statements using the SFL approach, focusing on the analysis of transitivity and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified 164 EOs present in 42.37% (3478/8209) of the word count in the corpus. These were mainly negative (n=90, 54.88%) and implicit (n=55, 60.00%). We distinguished opening, content and closing messages structures. Most of the wording was found in the content (n=7077, 86.21%) with a declarative structure (n=7084, 86.30%). Processes represented 22.4% (n=1839) of the corpus, with half being material (n=876, 10.67%) and mostly related to food and diet (n=196, 54.92%), physical activity (n=96, 26.89%), and lifestyle goals (n=40, 11.20%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that empathy and SFL approaches are compatible. The results from our transitivity analysis reveal novel insights into the meanings of the users' EOs, such as their seek for help or praise, often missed by health care professionals (HCPs), and on the coach-user relationship. The absence of explicit EOs and direct questions could be attributed to low trust on or information about the coach's abilities. In the future, we will conduct further research to explore additional linguistic features and code coach messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001240932; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380020.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Numerous psychosocial interventions have been conducted in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, aiming to improve their self-management and autonomy acquisition. However, these tend to address family conflict and parental perspectives, and a scarce number of interventions explore the outcomes among preteens. This review examined the outcomes of psychosocial interventions for preteens with type 1 diabetes, as an under-researched field to date. METHODS: A systematic literature review of intervention studies with randomized controlled trial design, targeting preteens with type 1 diabetes, was conducted. Six databases were searched for publication periods from 1995 to October 2019. Quality of the interventions according to the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), as well as reporting and effect sizes, were assessed. RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected, covering ten interventions. According to the topics identified, four of these interventions were categorized as self-care programmes, three as psychosocial programmes and three as mixed. All of the interventions, except for one, covered ≥50% of the ISPAD recommendations. Reporting adequacy was negative only in one intervention. Main outcomes were glycemic control and self-management, but effect sizes could only be calculated for half of the interventions with no overall significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows a lack of adequate psychosocial interventions targeting preteens with type 1 diabetes and actively involving them as participants. These intervention's educational programmes and methods should be standardized to guarantee successful results. New technologies and peer support implementation could be a promising pathway when designing these studies.
