Accessibility navigation


The utility of conversation analysis versus Roter’s interaction analysis system for studying communication in pharmacy settings

Alsubaie, S., Grant, D. and Donyai, P. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5403-6170 (2021) The utility of conversation analysis versus Roter’s interaction analysis system for studying communication in pharmacy settings. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. ISSN 0961-7671 (In Press)

[img] Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.

403kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Abstract/Summary

Objectives: To compare the usefulness of the Roter Interaction Analysis System with Conversation Analysis for studying dynamic patient-pharmacist interactions within pharmacy practice. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to identify all studies using Roter’s method or conversation analysis to investigate patient-pharmacist interactions. Seven electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Summon, and Web of Science between December 2019-March 2020 (with additional searches in January 2021). Articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: primary research in pharmacy settings, using either Roter’s method or conversation analysis, examining patient-pharmacist interaction, in English language. The review was not restricted to publications date. The studies were then compared and contrasted for their methodological advantages and disadvantages. Key findings: In total 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Roter’s method is effective in briefly describing patient-pharmacist interactions and can be used to measure the effect of training courses without consuming too much time. Conversation analysis, although a time-consuming undertaking, looks at very specific features and the sequence of conversations including the dynamics of two-way interactions, therefore can be used to identify the source of conflict or misunderstandings. A flowchart showing the usefulness of both methods is suggested to help other researchers select the appropriate method(s) for their own research. Conclusion: Although both methods are effective for investigating patient-pharmacist interactions independently, using them sequentially could enable researchers to firstly identify how to make improvements (via conversation analysis), design relevant training, and then investigate the impact of such training (via Roter’s method) to enrich communications research.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IDRCs) > Centre for Health Humanities (CHH)
Life Sciences > School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy > School of Pharmacy > Pharmacy Practice Research Group
ID Code:99117
Publisher:Oxford University Press

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation