Time‐related communication skills from the cancer patient perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although it is well recognized that skilled communication is an essential element of effective cancer care, lack of time to communicate is often cited as an explanation for the ongoing cancer care communications problems patients report. In this study, we sought to answer the question: How do cancer patients describe and explain the effects of health care communication upon their experience of time? METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis, using interpretive description methodology, on a large data set that comprised transcribed interview data from two studies of cancer communication from the patient perspective. One primary study represented a cross-sectional study of helpful and unhelpful communications (n=200) and the other a longitudinal study of changes in communication needs and preferences over the illness trajectory (n=60). RESULTS: We found time a meaningful and symbolic construct for cancer patients. They describe clinician time-related attitudes and behaviors as significant factors in shaping the impact of clinical encounters on their overall psychosocial cancer experiences. They report a number of ways in which clinician communications have been particularly effective in buffering and manipulating the impact of time pressures and describe a capacity within exceptionally skilled clinicians to manufacture a perception of available time even in the context of such pressures. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the patient perspective on cancer care communication provides an important angle of vision from which to discern strategies that may assist clinicians to buffer the untoward effects of the time pressure under which most care systems currently operate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".