MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367276427 · doi:10.2196/46601

Enhancing Nonverbal Communication Through Virtual Human Technology: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

2023· article· en· W4367276427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Analay Perez, Michael D. Fetters, John W. Creswell, Mark W. Scerbo, Frederick W Kron, Richard Gonzalez, Lawrence C. An, Masahito Jimbo, Predrag Klasnja, Timothy C. Guetterman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNonverbal communicationExploratory researchQualitative researchGrounded theoryThematic analysisCoding (social sciences)PsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMultimediaCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communication is a critical component of the patient-provider relationship; however, limited research exists on the role of nonverbal communication. Virtual human training is an informatics-based educational strategy that offers various benefits in communication skill training directed at providers. Recent informatics-based interventions aimed at improving communication have mainly focused on verbal communication, yet research is needed to better understand how virtual humans can improve verbal and nonverbal communication and further elucidate the patient-provider dyad. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to enhance a conceptual model that incorporates technology to examine verbal and nonverbal components of communication and develop a nonverbal assessment that will be included in the virtual simulation for further testing. METHODS: This study will consist of a multistage mixed methods design, including convergent and exploratory sequential components. A convergent mixed methods study will be conducted to examine the mediating effects of nonverbal communication. Quantitative (eg, MPathic game scores, Kinect nonverbal data, objective structured clinical examination communication score, and Roter Interaction Analysis System and Facial Action Coding System coding of video) and qualitative data (eg, video recordings of MPathic-virtual reality [VR] interventions and student reflections) will be collected simultaneously. Data will be merged to determine the most crucial components of nonverbal behavior in human-computer interaction. An exploratory sequential design will proceed, consisting of a grounded theory qualitative phase. Using theoretical, purposeful sampling, interviews will be conducted with oncology providers probing intentional nonverbal behaviors. The qualitative findings will aid the development of a nonverbal communication model that will be included in a virtual human. The subsequent quantitative strand will incorporate and validate a new automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment into the virtual human simulation, MPathic-VR, by assessing interrater reliability, code interactions, and dyadic data analysis by comparing Kinect responses (system recorded) to manually scored records for specific nonverbal behaviors. Data will be integrated using building integration to develop the automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment and conduct a quality check of these nonverbal features. RESULTS: Secondary data from the MPathic-VR randomized controlled trial data set (210 medical students and 840 video recordings of interactions) were analyzed in the first part of this study. Results showed differential experiences by performance in the intervention group. Following the analysis of the convergent design, participants consisting of medical providers (n=30) will be recruited for the qualitative phase of the subsequent exploratory sequential design. We plan to complete data collection by July 2023 to analyze and integrate these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study contribute to the improvement of patient-provider communication, both verbal and nonverbal, including the dissemination of health information and health outcomes for patients. Further, this research aims to transfer to various topical areas, including medication safety, informed consent processes, patient instructions, and treatment adherence between patients and providers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46601.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.013

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 head0.756
GPT teacher head0.742
Teacher spread0.014 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207