The Patient's Lifeworld: Building meaningful clinical encounters between patients, physicians and interpreters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, our objectives are first to explore the different ways physicians and interpreters interact with patients' Lifeworld, and second, to describe and compare communication patterns in consultations with professional and those with family interpreters. We conducted analyses of transcriptions of 16 family practice consultations in Montreal in the presence of interpreters. Patterns of communication are delineated, grounded in Habermas' Communicative Action Theory and Mishler's operational concepts of Voice of Medicine and Voice of Lifeworld. Four communication patterns emerged: (1) strategically using Lifeworld data to achieve biomedical goals; (2) having an interest in the Lifeworld for itself; (3) integrating the Lifeworld with biomedicine; and (4) referring to another professional. Our results suggest physicians engage with patients' Lifeworld and may benefit from both types of interpreters' understanding of the patient's specific situations. A professional interpreter is likely to transmit the patient's Lifeworld utterances to the physician. A family member, on the other hand, may provide extra biomedical and Lifeworld information, but also prevent the patient's Lifeworld accounts from reaching the physician. Physicians' training should include advice on how to work with all types of interpreters and interpreters' training should include mediation competencies in order to enhance their ability to promote the processes of co-construction of meaning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".