The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health‐care professionals
Open accessAbstract
Background It is clear that much of the success of health‐care provision depends on the quality of interactions between health professionals and patients. For instance, it is widely recognized that patients are more likely to take medication effectively if they have been involved in discussions about treatment options, and understand and support the decision about what is prescribed (patient concordance). Hence, patient participation is important for the success of medical outcomes. The key is to explore how communicative choices made by health professionals impact on the quality of interactions in general, and of patient participation in particular. However, to date there has not been an appropriate method for investigating this connection or impact. Objective To outline the perspective and method of Conversation Analysis (CA). Developed within sociology and linguistics, CA offers a rigorous method (applicable to large data sets) to the study of interaction in health settings. Strategy The method of CA is illustrated through a review of CA studies of doctor–patient interactions. Two such studies, one from the US and the other from Finland, are reviewed, in order to show how CA can be applied to identifying both forms of patient participation, and the interactional conditions which provide opportunities for patient participation. These studies focus principally on the medical examination and diagnostic stages of the consultation. Further research will examine the forms and conditions of patient participation in decision‐making.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction
Heath, C., & Nicholls, K. (1986) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628221 · Cited by 1,044
Korsch, B. M., & Negrete, V. F. (1972) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0872-66 · Cited by 802
Hall, J., Roter, D., & Junghans, B. (1995) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1111/j.1444-0938.1995.tb00792.x · Cited by 648
Conigliaro, R. L. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.7.750 · Cited by 452
Authority and Accountability: The Delivery of Diagnosis in Primary Health Care
Perakyla, A. (1998) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2787032 · Cited by 357
Online commentary in acute medical visits: a method of shaping patient expectations
Heritage, J. C., & Stivers, T. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00219-1 · Cited by 343
ROBINSON, J. D. (1998) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00438.x · Cited by 261
The Medical Interview: Clinical Care, Education, and Research
Lipkin, M., Putnam, S. M., & Lazare, A. (2011) · Cited by 259
Doing Attributions in Medical Interaction: Patients' Explanations for Illness and Doctors' Responses
Gill, V. T. (1998) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2787034 · Cited by 167
Cited by
Irvine, A., Drew, P., Bower, P., Brooks, H., Gellatly, J., Armitage, C. J., Barkham, M., McMillan, D., & Bee, P. (2020) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.057 · Cited by 196
“The method of Conversation Analysis (CA) offers a proven method for adding understanding to the interactional processes of clinical encounters (Drew et al., 2001; Heritage and Maynard, 2006; Heritage and Robinson, 2006; Perakyla et al., 2008; Robinson, 2003; Robinson and Heritage, 2006).”
MethodApplying corpus linguistics in a health care context
Adolphs, S., Brown, B., Carter, R., Crawford, P., & Sahota, O. (2004) · Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1558/japl.1.1.9.55871 · Cited by 107
Potthoff, S., Presseau, J., Sniehotta, F. F., Johnston, M., Elovainio, M., & Avery, L. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0551-6 · Cited by 82
McCabe, R., John, P., Dooley, J., Healey, P., Cushing, A., Kingdon, D., Bremner, S., & Priebe, S. (2016) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179499 · Cited by 74
"Doing prescribing": how might clinicians work differently for better, safer care
Elwyn, G. (2003) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_1.i33 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S.
- Venue
- Health Expectations
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-70
- ISSN
- 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2171879071
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 10.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health‐care professionals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00125.x
- The paper
- Drew, P., Chatwin, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Conversation analysis: a method for research into interactions between patients and health‐care professionals. Health Expectations. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00125.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.