Should consultation recording use be a practice standard? A systematic review of the effectiveness and implementation of consultation recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of consultation recordings and identify factors contributing to their successful implementation in health-care settings. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for quantitative studies examining the effectiveness of consultation recordings in health care. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance and quality of retrieved quantitative studies by using standardized criteria. Study findings were examined to determine consultation recording effectiveness and to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. A supplementary review of qualitative evidence was performed to further explicate implementation factors. RESULTS: Of the 3373 articles retrieved in the quantitative search, 26 satisfied the standardized inclusion criteria (12 randomized controlled trials, 1 quasi-experiment, and 13 cross-sectional studies). Most patients found consultation recordings beneficial. Statistically significant evidentiary support was found for the beneficial impact of consultation recordings on the following patient reported outcomes: knowledge, perception of being informed, information recall, decision-making factors, anxiety, and depression. Implementation barriers included strength of evidence concerns, patient distress, impact of the recording on consultation quality, clinic procedures, medico-legal issues, and resource costs. Facilitators included comfort with being recorded, clinical champions, legal strategies, efficient recording procedures, and a positive consultation recording experience. CONCLUSIONS: Consultation recordings are valuable to patients and positively associated with patient-reported outcomes. Successful integration of consultation recording use into clinical practice requires an administratively supported, systematic approach to addressing implementation factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".