The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions
Introduction
The physician–patient relationship has been described since the time of the Greeks; however, systematic study of the medical dialogue is a modern phenomenon. Technological advances have made observation and analysis of large numbers of medical visits feasible, and indeed, the number of empirical studies of doctor–patient communication has grown markedly over the past two decades. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) has emerged over this period as the most widely used single system of medical interaction assessment. It has been used in over 75 communication studies conducted in North America and Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These studies have described communication in adult and pediatric primary care, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, oncology, end of life and palliative care, surgery, nursing, podiatry, genetic counseling, family planning services, and dentistry. (See the website www/RIAS.org for an annotated bibliography of RIAS studies.)
The purpose of this essay is to broadly overview RIAS characteristics and to discuss its capabilities and key coding conventions (detailed examples and coding instructions that are presented in the RIAS code manual are not repeated here because of space limitations). We also take this opportunity to address a variety of questions raised by Sandvik et al. in this issue regarding RIAS coding conventions and the system’s compatibility with linguistic-based techniques of communication analysis [1].
Section snippets
Characteristics of RIAS
The RIAS is derived loosely from social exchange theories related to interpersonal influence, problem solving, and reciprocity [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It provides a tool for viewing the dynamics of resource exchange between patients and providers through the medical dialogue. The social exchange orientation is consistent with health education and empowerment perspectives that view the medical encounter as a “meeting between experts” through which dialogue shapes the therapeutic relationship
RIAS and linguistics-based interaction analysis
Sandvik et al. have authored a thoughtful analysis of the RIAS from the perspective of conversation analysis, a particular form of linguistic interaction analysis [1]. In doing so, the authors have raised several broad methodological and measurement issues and have suggested a number of alternatives to RIAS coding conventions. As discussed below, there are tradeoffs for each suggestion and each is considered in regard to practicality, functional utility, coder burden, and conceptual clarity.
Conclusions
Just because a variable can be measured does not necessarily mean that it can provide meaning; conversely, failing to adequately capture a phenomenon does not mean that it lacks significance. Before we can specify what can or should be measured, we must ask ourselves why particular communication variables merit measurement, and where do the variables fit in a broader conceptual and theoretical framework? A weakness that is evident in research endeavors relative to medical communication is a
Note
Our website RIAS.org welcomes visitors interested in posting RIAS-related studies and abstracts, sharing experience in using and adapting the RIAS, and to view the coding manual. Also available on the website is information regarding our software, training, and bibliographic abstracts of studies that have used the RIAS.
References (54)
An exploration of health education’s responsibility for a partnership model of client–provider relations
Patient Edu. Couns.
(1987)The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship
Patient Edu. Couns.
(2000)- et al.
Doctor–patient communication and cancer patients’ quality of life and satisfaction
Patient Edu. Couns.
(2000) - et al.
Doctor–patient interactions in oncology
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1996) - et al.
Patient–physician interactions in diabetes management: consistencies and variation in the structure and content of two consultations
Patient Edu. Couns.
(1996) - et al.
Shifts in doctor–patient communication during a series of outpatient consultations in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
Patient Edu. Couns.
(1997) - et al.
Measuring patient-centeredness: a comparison of three observation-based instruments
Patient Edu. Couns.
(2000) - et al.
Analysing medical dialougues: strengths and weaknesses of Roter’s interaction analysis system (RIAS)
Patient Educ Couns
(2002) - Bales RF. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley,...
Social exchange theory
Annu. Rev. Publ. Hlth.
(1976)
Affective and instrumental components in the physician–patient relationship: an additional dimension of interaction theory
J. Hlth. Soc. Behav.
The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement
Am. Soc. Rev.
Health education theory: An application to the process of patient–provider communication
Hlth. Edu. Res.
The medical visit context of treatment decision-making and the therapeutic relationship
Hlth. Expect.
Meetings between experts. New York: Tavistock
Hlth. Edu. Q.
Studies of doctor–patient interaction
Annu. Rev. Publ. Hlth.
The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) in oncological consultations: psychometric properties
Psychooncology
Cancer patients’ coping styles and doctor–patient communication
Psychooncology
Doctor–patient communication patterns in breast cancer adjuvant therapy discussions
Hlth. Expect.
Cited by (711)
Using decision support tools for treatment decision making about antidepressants in outpatient psychiatric consultations
2024, Patient Education and CounselingCommunication between physicians, patients, their companions and other healthcare professionals in home medical care in Japan
2024, Patient Education and CounselingDiscriminatory and valuing communication behaviors in cardiology encounters
2024, Patient Education and CounselingValidating computer-generated measures of linguistic style matching and accommodation in patient-clinician communication
2024, Patient Education and CounselingPatient-centeredness in psychiatric work disability evaluations and the reproducibility of work capacity estimates
2024, Patient Education and Counseling