“Please listen to me, I want to know what is wrong with my shoulder”: A qualitative study exploring patients’ expectations and experiences with primary care management.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The management of shoulder pain is challenging for primary care clinicians considering that 40% of affected individuals remain symptomatic one year after initial consultation. Developing tailored knowledge translation interventions founded on evidence-based recommendations while also considering patients’ expectations could improve primary care for shoulder pain. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore patients’ expectations and experiences of their primary care consultation for shoulder pain. Methods: In this qualitative study, participants with shoulder pain and having consulted a primary care physician in the past year were interviewed. All the semi-structured interviews were transcribed into verbatims, and inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify themes related to the participants’ expectations and experiences of primary care consultations for shoulder pain. Results: Thirteen participants with shoulder pain were interviewed (8 women, 5 men; mean age 50 ± 12 years). Eleven of them initially consulted a family or an emergency physician, and two participants initially consulted a physiotherapist. Four overarching themes related to patients’ expectations and experiences were identified from our thematic analysis: 1) I can’t sleep because of my shoulder; 2) I need to know what is happening with my shoulder; 3) But… we need to really see what is going on to help me!; and 4) Please take some time with me so I can understand what to do!. Several participants waited until they experienced a high level of shoulder pain before making an appointment since they were not confident about what their family physician could do to manage their condition. Although some participants felt that their physician took the time to listened to their concerns, many were dissatisfied with the limited assessment and education provided by the clinician. Conclusions: Implementing evidence-based recommendations while also considering patients’ expectations is important as it may improve care delivery and patients’ satisfaction with care. Several participants reported that their expectations were not met, especially when it came to the explanations provided. One unexpected finding that emerged from this study was the delay between the onset of shoulder pain and when patients decided to consult their primary care clinician.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».