↓ Skip to main content

The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
The Validity of Using Analogue Patients in Practitioner–Patient Communication Research: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11606-012-2111-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liesbeth M. van Vliet, Elsken van der Wall, Akke Albada, Peter M. M. Spreeuwenberg, William Verheul, Jozien M. Bensing

Abstract

When studying the patient perspective on communication, some studies rely on analogue patients (patients and healthy subjects) who rate videotaped medical consultations while putting themselves in the shoes of the video-patient. To describe the rationales, methodology, and outcomes of studies using video-vignette designs in which videotaped medical consultations are watched and judged by analogue patients. Pubmed, Embase, Psychinfo and CINAHL databases were systematically searched up to February 2012. Data was extracted on: study characteristics and quality, design, rationales, internal and external validity, limitations and analogue patients' perceptions of studied communication. A meta-analysis was conducted on the distribution of analogue patients' evaluations of communication. Thirty-four studies were included, comprising both scripted and clinical studies, of average-to-superior quality. Studies provided unspecific, ethical as well as methodological rationales for conducting video-vignette studies with analogue patients. Scripted studies provided the most specific methodological rationales and tried the most to increase and test internal validity (e.g. by performing manipulation checks) and external validity (e.g. by determining identification with video-patient). Analogue patients' perceptions of communication largely overlap with clinical patients' perceptions. The meta-analysis revealed that analogue patients' evaluations of practitioners' communication are not subject to ceiling effects. Analogue patients' evaluations of communication equaled clinical patients' perceptions, while overcoming ceiling effects. This implies that analogue patients can be included as proxies for clinical patients in studies on communication, taken some described precautions into account. Insights from this review may ease decisions about including analogue patients in video-vignette studies, improve the quality of these studies and increase knowledge on communication from the patient perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 117 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Librarian 6 5%
Other 26 21%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 30%
Psychology 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Linguistics 4 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 24 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2020.
All research outputs
#7,235,153
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,911
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,811
of 168,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#49
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.