Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

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 access
Drew, Paul, Chatwin, John, Collins, Sarah·2001·Health Expectations

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00125.x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 365

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.