The Empathic Communication Analytical Framework (ECAF): A multimodal perspective on emotional communication in interpreter-mediated consultations
Keywords:healthcare interpreting; multimodal interaction analysis; empathy; nonverbal communication; emotions
Empathic communication (EC) in healthcare occurs when patients express empathic opportunities, such as emotions, to which doctors respond empathically. This interactional process during which participants try to achieve specific communicative goals (e.g., seeking and displaying empathy) serves as a context in which doctors and patients perform verbal and nonverbal actions and collaboratively co-construct meaning. This applies to interpreter-mediated consultations (IMCs) too, where interpreters perform additional actions of a similar kind. However, there is a dearth of research on the ways in which participants perform these actions in the context of EC, and how these actions in turn help (re)shape the context of EC in IMCs (Theys et al., 2020). To date, any tools for studying EC investigate participants’ actions in isolation, without studying them in the context of EC or in relation to the participants’ awareness of their own and others’ ongoing interactions. In this article, we present the Empathic Communication Analytical Framework (ECAF). The tool draws on valid, complementary analytical tools that allow for a fine-grained, three-level multimodal analysis of interactions. The first level of analysis allows for instances of EC in spoken language IMCs to be identified and for participants’ verbal actions in the context of EC to be studied. The second level allows analysts to investigate participants’ verbal and nonverbal actions in the previously identified context of EC. The third level of analysis links the participants’ concurrent verbal and nonverbal (inter)actions to their levels of attention and awareness and shows how participants’ actions are shaped and in turn help to reshape the context of EC in IMCs. In this article, we present the various levels of the ECAF framework, discuss its application to real-life data, and adopt a critical stance towards its affordances and limitations by looking into one excerpt of EC in IMCs. It is shown that the three distinct yet interconnected levels of analysis in the ECAF framework allow participants’ concurrent multimodal interactions in the context of EC to be studied.
Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3522.214.171.124
Bensing, J., Van Dulmen, S., & Tates, K. (2003). Communication in context: New directions in communication research. Patient Educ Couns, 50(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00076-4
Bensing, J. M., Kerssens, J. J., & van der Pasch, M. (1995). Patient-directed gaze as a tool for discovering and handling psychosocial problems in general practice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(4), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173082
Blanch-Hartigan, D. (2013). Patient satisfaction with physician errors in detecting and identifying patient emotion cues. Patient Educ Couns, 93(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.010
Brugel, S., Postma-Nilsenová, M., & Tates, K. (2015). The link between perception of clinical empathy and nonverbal behavior: The effect of a doctor’s gaze and body orientation. Patient Educ Couns, 98(10), 1260–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.007
Bylund, C. L., & Makoul, G. (2002). Empathic communication and gender in the physician–patient encounter. Patient Educ Couns, 48(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00173-8
Bylund, C. L., & Makoul, G. (2005). Examining empathy in medical encounters: An observational study using the Empathic Communication Coding System. Health Commun, 18(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1802_2
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.
Gorawara-Bhat, R., Hafskjold, L., Gulbrandsen, P., & Eide, H. (2017). Exploring physicians’ verbal and nonverbal responses to cues/concerns: Learning from incongruent communication. Patient Educ Couns, 100(11), 1979–1989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.06.027
Gutierrez, A. M., Statham, E. E., Robinson, J. O., Slashinski, M. J., Scollon, S., Bergstrom, K. L., Street, R. L., Parsons, D. W., Plon, S. E., & McGuire, A. L. (2019). Agents of empathy: How medical interpreters bridge sociocultural gaps in genomic sequencing disclosures with Spanish-speaking families. Patient Educ Couns, 102(5), 895–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.012
Hofer, G. (2020). Investigating expressions of pain and emotion in authentic interpreted medical consultations: “But I am afraid, you know, that it will get worse”. In I. E. T. de V. Souza & E. Fragkou (Eds.), Handbook of research on medical interpreting (pp. 136–164). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9308-9
Hojat, M. (2016). Empathy in health professions education and patient care. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27625-0
Hsieh, E., Bruscella, J., Zanin, A., & Kramer, E. M. (2016). “It’s not like you need to live 10 or 20 years”: Challenges to patient-centered care in gynecologic oncologist–patient interactions. Qual Health Res, 26(9), 1191–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315589095
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346-369). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665868.021
Kerasidou, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the ongoing need for empathy, compassion and trust in healthcare. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 98, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.237198
Krystallidou, D. (2014). Gaze and body orientation as an apparatus for patient inclusion into/exclusion from a patient-centred framework of communication. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.972033
Krystallidou, D. (2016). Investigating the interpreter’s role(s): The A.R.T. framework. Interpreting, 18(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.18.2.02kry
Krystallidou, D. (2020). Going video: Understanding interpreter-mediated clinical communication through the video lens. In G. Brône & H. Salaets (Eds.), Linking up with video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research (Vol. 149, pp. 181–202). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.149.08kry
Krystallidou, D., Bylund, C. L., & Pype, P. (2020). The professional interpreter’s effect on empathic communication in medical consultations: a qualitative analysis of interaction. Patient Educ Couns, 103(3), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.027
Krystallidou, D., & Pype, P. (2018). How interpreters influence patient participation in medical consultations: The confluence of verbal and nonverbal dimensions of interpreter-mediated clinical communication. Patient Educ Couns, 101(10), 1804–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.05.006
Krystallidou, D., Remael, A., de Boe, E., Hendrickx, K., Tsakitzidis, G., van de Geuchte, S., & Pype, P. (2018). Investigating empathy in interpreter-mediated simulated consultations: An explorative study. Patient Educ Couns, 101(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.022
Lan, W. (2019). Crossing the chasm: Embodied empathy in medical interpreter assessment https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/etd_oa/674
Lorié, Á., Reinero, D. A., Phillips, M., Zhang, L., & Riess, H. (2017). Culture and nonverbal expressions of empathy in clinical settings: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns, 100(3), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.018
Merlini, R., & Gatti, M. (2015). Empathy in healthcare interpreting: Going beyond the notion of role. The Interpreters’ Newsletter, 20, 139–160. https://doi.org/10077/11857
National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Medical subject headings https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203379493
Norris, S. (2006). Multiparty interaction: A multimodal perspective on relevance. Discourse Studies, 8(3), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061878
Pasquandrea, S. (2011). Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society, 40(4), 455–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000479
Pasquandrea, S. (2012). Co-constructing dyadic sequences in healthcare interpreting: A multimodal account. New Voices in Translation Studies, 8, 132–157. https://www.iatis.org/images/stories/publications/new-voices/Issue8-2012/IPCITI/article-pasquandrea-2012.pdf
Poyatos, F. (2002). Nonverbal communication across disciplines: Volume 1: Culture, sensory interaction, speech, conversation. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.ncad1
Silverman, J., Kurtz, S., & Draper, J. (2013). Skills for communicating with patients. Radcliff Medical Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781910227268
Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., Weston, W., McWhinney, I. R., McWilliam, C. L., & Freeman, T. (2013). Patient-centered medicine: Transforming the clinical method. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b20740
Theys, L., Krystallidou, D., Salaets, H., Wermuth, C., & Pype, P. (2020). Emotion work in interpreter-mediated consultations: A systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns, 103(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.006
Vranjes, J., Bot, H., Feyaerts, K., & Brône, G. (2019). Affiliation in interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk: On the relationship between gaze and head nods. Interpreting, 21(2), 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00028.vra
Wadensjö, C. (2001). Interpreting in crisis: The interpreter's position in therapeutic encounters. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting (pp. 71–85). Routledge.
Yaseen, Z. S., & Foster, A. E. (2020). What is empathy? In Z. S. Yaseen & A. E. Foster (Eds.), Teaching empathy in healthcare: Building a new core competency (pp. 3–16). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29876-0
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).