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

Alsubaie, S., Grant, D. and Donyai, P. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5403-6170 (2022) The utility of conversation analysis versus Roter’s interaction analysis system for studying communication in pharmacy settings: a scoping review. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 30 (1). pp. 17-27. ISSN 0961-7671 doi: 10.1093/ijpp/riab068

Abstract/Summary

Objectives To compare the usefulness of the Roter Interaction Analysis System with Conversation Analysis (CA) for studying dynamic patient–pharmacist interactions within pharmacy practice. A scoping review was undertaken to identify all studies using Roter’s method or CA to investigate patient–pharmacist interactions. 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. CA, although a time-consuming undertaking, looks at very specific features and the sequence of conversations including the dynamics of two-way interactions and can therefore 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. Summary 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 CA), design relevant training and then investigate the impact of such training (via Roter’s method) to enrich communications research.

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/99117
Identification Number/DOI	10.1093/ijpp/riab068
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
Publisher	Oxford University Press
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item