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: Hand hygiene is an integral public health strategy in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, yet the past research has shown hand hygiene practices among the public is sub-optimal. This study aimed to (1) quantify hand sanitization rates among the public to minimize the transmission of COVID-19 and (2) evaluate whether different public health messaging, based on various behavior-change theories influences hand hygiene behavior in a natural setting. Methods: An observational, naturalistic study design was used with real-time customer activity data recorded against hand sanitizer usage in a regional hardware store. Primary outcome from the study was to measure the usage ratio by counting the amount of activity versus usage of hand sanitizer per hour against individual messages based on their behavioral change technique (BCT). Results: There was no significant difference between the baseline message and any of the intervention messages [F(16,904) = 1.19, p = 0.279] or between BCT groups [F(3,906) = 1.33, p = 0.263]. Post hoc tests showed no significant difference between messages (social comparison, p = 0.395; information, p = 1.00; and action planning, p = 1.00). Conclusion: This study showed that even during a pandemic, hand hygiene usage rates in a public setting were similar to the past studies and that compliance did not shift dependent on the public message displayed. This raises questions on whether requirements imposed on businesses to provide hand sanitizer to patrons are an ineffective and maybe an unnecessary economic burden. A measured approach to risk and behavioral analysis surrounding the use of hand sanitizer in a pandemic is suggested as a better approach to inform public policy on the value of hand sanitizer.
