Developing a new line of patter: can doctors change their consultations for sore throat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Doctors report pressure from peers to reduce prescribing of antibiotics for minor respiratory illnesses, and from patients to do the opposite. It has been suggested that doctors adopt a more patient-centred consulting style in order to encourage patient satisfaction and shared decision-making. No evidence exists that such changes are achievable. We developed a new, on-site method for training postgraduates and used this for teaching patient-centred intervention. Here, we examine whether this training method is associated with changes in consulting patterns in consultations for sore throat with children, among doctors from a single group practice. METHODS: Audiotaped consultations (simulated and real) conducted before and after training were analysed and interviews were carried out with participants about the impact of training. SETTING: A general practice in South Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Four general practitioners who consulted with 25 real and simulated patients participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four patient-centred skills used by doctors and 2 patient behaviours measured before and after training were identified. RESULTS: Three out of 4 practitioners produced clear evidence of changes in patient-centred consulting skills. These changes were evident in simulated and real consultations 2 and 4 weeks later, respectively. Prior to training the doctors produced only five examples of patient-centred skills in 10 consultations. After training they produced 39 examples in 15 consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from both consultations and interviews indicated that the intervention and training were well received and had been put into practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".