Cited by 169Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Using video-recorded consultations for research in primary care: advantages and limitations

Coleman, T.·2000·Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Video-recording primary care consultations is an established technique for primary care research. Despite the widespread use of video-recording to help answer a variety of research questions, little is known about how this recording technique influences the findings of studies in which it is employed. OBJECTIVE: This article investigates how video-recorded consultations have been used in research and discusses how this technique may influence both the internal and external validity of studies. CONCLUSION: Using video-recorded consultations for research purposes may cause bias in the characteristics of doctors and patients who agree to participate in research. There is little evidence, however, that video-recording influences the behaviour of either GPs or patients. Recommendations are made for researchers who are considering using video-recorded consultations in their research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/17.5.422

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coleman, T.
Affiliations
University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Coleman, T.
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2000-10-01
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
422-427
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2111325617
Cited by
169
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
video-recorded consultations, primary care research, research bias, internal validity, generalizability, general practitioners, patient behavior
MeSH terms
Family Practice, Health Services Research, Humans, Patients, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Research Design, Videotape Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Observation

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