The Medical Interview: Differences Between Adult and Geriatric Outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a perception that primary care physicians spend less time with older patients and little is known about physician and older patient satisfaction during clinical encounters. OBJECTIVE: To determine how primary care interviews of geriatric patients differ from those of other adults. DESIGN: Descriptive, analytic study. SETTING: Ten primary care sites in the United States and one in Canada, including public, voluntary, and private clinics and practices. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 544 patients, 45.6% were 65 and older and 17.8% were 75 or older. There were 127 participating physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Encounters were audiotaped and analyzed. Patients and physicians also completed exit questionnaires. RESULTS: Interview length increased significantly with age for men but not for women. Physician satisfaction did not change as patient age increased. Patient satisfaction, on the other hand decreased with age among women but not for men. Although physicians' and younger patients' perceptions of health were moderately associated, there was no association for men ages 75 and over. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that physicians spend less time or are more uncomfortable with older patients. Both physician and male patient satisfaction remain stable with increasing patient age, despite greater disparity in patient and physician perceptions of health. Older female patients are less satisfied with physician visits than their younger counterparts, in the absence of changes in interview length or disparities between older female patients and their physicians in health perception.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".