Who's Listening? Experiences of Women with Breast Cancer in Communicating with Physicians
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe communication behaviors and attitudes of physicians that were most important to women living with breast cancer. Two focus group sessions were conducted, 1 month apart, involving 15 women who were members of a community-based breast cancer support group in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Group dialogue was audiotaped, and notes were taken at each session by the coinvestigators, also members of the support group. Audiotapes, coinvestigators' written notes from the two focus group sessions, and the written homework assignments were used in the qualitative data analysis. Conceptual themes were identified and grouped to discern patterns within the data. The women were asked the following: (a) What were the most helpful things your doctor said or did at the time of your diagnosis? (b) What does a good intervention feel or look like? They were then asked to describe behaviors and attitudes they would like to influence in medical students who might later be communicating with women facing a diagnosis of breast cancer and to indicate which behaviors and attitudes they felt were most important. Women's positive experiences with physicians were characterized by communication based on active listening, awareness of the women's knowledge of their illness, honesty, and partnership. Physicians who showed interest in their patients as persons and who used touch to communicate caring were perceived as supportive communicators. Not surprisingly, there were similarities between the participants' positive experiences with their own physicians and the behaviors and attitudes desired in future physicians. Once again, "listening" was ranked as most important, followed by willingness to discern the individual patient's knowledge level.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle