Turn analysis and patient‐centredness in paediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physician and patient/parent communication is of utmost importance in consultations to improve the shared decision-making (SDM) processes. This study investigated SDM-related outcomes through turn analysis and an assessment of patient-centred dialogue. DESIGN: Multi-centre prospective cohort study analysing audio- and video-recorded patient/parent-physician interactions. SETTING: Two tertiary paediatric hospitals in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Salt Lake City, Utah. PARTICIPANTS: Paediatric otolaryngologists, patients and parents during consultation for adenotonsillectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical dialogue measures (turn analysis, patient-centredness scores via the Roter Interaction Analysis System) and SDM questionnaires (SDM-Q-9). RESULTS: Turn density was significantly higher for physicians than patients/parents (P < .001), as were total statements (P < .001), and total time talking (P < .001). The opening statement was completed by the physician in 91.5% of interactions and was significantly longer than family opening statements (P = .003). The mean number of informed consent elements addressed per interaction was 4.5 out of 6. The mean patient-centredness score was 0.2 (range 0-0.56). Significant negative correlations between patient-centredness score and physician turn density (r = -.390, P = .002), physician mean turn time (r = -.406, P = .001), total physician statements (r = -.426, P = .001) and total physician speaking time (r = -.313, P = .016) were noted. There were no correlations in SDM questionnaire scores with turn analysis variables, informed consent elements or patient-centredness scores. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons dominated the consultation in terms of talking, mostly in a unidirectional manner. Neither patient-centredness nor turn analysis correlated with perceptions of SDM from the parents' perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".