Hall Judith A, Schmid Mast Marianne
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 125 NI, Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Mar;74(3):282-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.10.014. Epub 2008 Dec 20.
Analyzes the term "theoretical" as it applies to the area of provider-patient communication research, in order to understand better at a conceptual level what the term may mean for authors and critics.
Based on literature on provider-patient communication.
Offers, and discusses, five definitions of the term "theoretical" as it applies to empirical research and its exposition: (1) grounding, (2) referencing, (3) design and analysis, (4) interpretation, and (5) impact. Each of these definitions embodies a different standard for evaluating the theoretical aspects of research.
Although it is often said that research on provider-patient communication is not "theoretical" enough, the term is ambiguous and often applied vaguely. A multidimensional analysis reveals that there are several distinct ways in which empirical research can be strong or weak theoretically.
Researchers, educators, editors, and reviewers could use the "Five Ways" framework to appraise the theory-relevant strengths and weaknesses of empirical research and its exposition.
分析“理论的”这一术语在医患沟通研究领域中的应用，以便在概念层面更好地理解该术语对作者和批评者可能意味着什么。
基于有关医患沟通的文献。
提出并讨论了“理论的”这一术语应用于实证研究及其阐述时的五种定义：（1）基础，（2）参考，（3）设计与分析，（4）解释，以及（5）影响。这些定义中的每一个都体现了评估研究理论方面的不同标准。
尽管人们常说医患沟通研究的“理论性”不足，但该术语含义模糊且使用往往不明确。多维分析表明，实证研究在理论上强弱有几种不同的方式。
研究人员、教育工作者、编辑和审稿人可以使用“五种方式”框架来评估实证研究及其阐述在理论相关方面的优缺点。
