Patients??? Perspectives on Physicians??? Roles: Implications for Curricular Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elucidate the perspectives of patients on the conceptual framework for a new undergraduate medical curriculum organized around the healer and professional roles of the physician (their physicianship), and to illustrate how these perspectives can affect program development. METHOD: In 2006, using an adapted interpretive description design and semistructured interviews, the authors collected data from a sample of 58 patients receiving care in a major academic medical center. RESULTS: Three findings were particularly salient. (1) The concepts of the physician as healer and professional, although central to the curriculum, did not resonate strongly with patients. The words professionalism and healer occasionally accrued negative connotations. There was little concordance between the lexicon patients use to describe ideal physician behaviors and a faculty-defined list of core physicianship attributes. (2) The listening skills of physicians were highly valued and seen as an "essentia" of ideal doctoring. (3) Being treated as a number by physicians represented a threat to patients' personal identity. CONCLUSIONS: This study found important differences between patients' and physicians' perspectives on key curricular concepts. Understanding these differences represents an important resource for program design and development. The findings also suggest avenues for future research on highly topical issues such as professionalism.
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 | 0.031 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".