Achieving patient‐centred care: the potential and challenge of the patient‐as‐professional role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The patient-as-professional concept acknowledges the expert participation of patients in interprofessional teams, including their contributions to managing and coordinating their care. However, little is known about experiences and perspectives of these teams. OBJECTIVE: To investigate (i) patients' and carers' experiences of actively engaging in interprofessional care by enacting the patient-as-professional role and (ii) clinicians' perspectives of this involvement. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A two-phased qualitative study. In Phase 1, people with chronic disease (n = 50) and their carers (n = 5) participated in interviews and focus groups. Phase 2 involved interviews with clinicians (n = 14). Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Patients and carers described the characteristics of the role (knowing about the condition, questioning clinicians, coordinating care, using a support network, engaging an advocate and being proactive), as well as factors that influence its performance (the patient-clinician partnership, benefits, barriers and applicability). However, both patients and carers, and clinicians cautioned that not all patients might desire this level of involvement. Clinicians were also concerned that not all patients have the required knowledge for this role, and those who do are time-consuming. When describing the inclusion of the patient-as-professional, clinicians highlighted the patient and clinician's roles, the importance of the clinician-patient relationship and ramifications of the role. CONCLUSION: Support exists for the patient-as-professional role. The characteristics and influencing factors identified in this study could guide patient engagement with the interprofessional team and support clinicians to provide patient-centred care. Recognition of the role has the potential to improve health-care delivery by promoting patient-centred care.
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 | 0.093 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".