MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3015340478 · doi:10.2196/16801

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3015340478 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Violetta Shersher, Terry Haines, Cylie Williams, Louisa Willoughby, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Carolina Weller

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash University
KeywordsHealth careTaxonomy (biology)Delphi methodMultidisciplinary approachPsychological interventionSystematic reviewMedical educationMedicineDelphiNursingMEDLINEComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no available standardized taxonomy of defined communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. It is challenging to identify communication techniques that contribute to effective healthcare provider and patient consultations and to replicate communication interventions in research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe a protocol for the development and pilot of a taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. METHODS: A systematic review will be completed to identify eligible studies. Extracted techniques and aids will be organized into a preliminary taxonomy by a multidisciplinary team. The preliminary taxonomy will be piloted by two groups: research assistants trained in taxonomy application and healthcare providers and healthcare professional students not trained in taxonomy use. The pilot will use custom developed video footage of health provider and patient interactions. Interrater validity and interview feedback will be used to inform a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary healthcare providers and patient experts when they convene to finalize the preliminary taxonomy. RESULTS: This study was funded in November 2017 by the Monash University Interdisciplinary Research Seed Funding Scheme. Data collection commenced in March 2018, and data analysis is in progress. We expect the results to be published in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first known attempt to develop a defined and standardized taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers in patient consultations. The findings will be used to inform future research by providing a detailed taxonomy of healthcare providers' communication techniques and standardized definitions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16801.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.171
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.171
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.745
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.079 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→