Reconceptualizing interruptions in physician-patient interviews: Cooperative and intrusive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results of past research on physician-patient interruption present an inconclusive picture. This study reconceptualizes interruption into cooperative and intrusive categories. Thirty physician-patient interviews, 13 male/male and 17 male/female, were audiotaped and microanalyzed. It was found that physicians did not interrupt patients more or vice versa. Rather, physicians and patients interrupted differently, the former more intrusively and the latter, more cooperatively. Furthermore, physicians did not dominate speaking turns nor speak more words than patients, as previously believed. We argue that their difference may not be measured by the number of words or speaking turns because it is embedded in their respective communication style. It was also found that female patients exhibited eleven times as much cooperative interruptions as did male patients. When physicians interrupted patients, they were unsuccessful only 6% of the time. When patients interrupted physicians, they were unsuccessful 32% of the time. The results of this study point out the necessity to reconceptualize interruptions in physician-patient interviews.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".