Patient‐centred education: what do students think?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Medical educators endeavour to foster patient-centred learning. Although studies of patient-educators report general increases in patient-centredness, no formal review of students' reflections on the role of patients in their education has yet been undertaken. Our research questions were: (i) What themes might be identified through a qualitative analysis of students' reflective writing on patient-centred education? (ii) What are common students' perceptions regarding patients as educators? METHODS: For two academic years, Year 2 pre-clinical students (189 and 167 students, respectively, in each academic year) submitted a 250-word writing assignment in response to one of four questions meant to promote reflection on the role of patients in their education. Using a grounded theory approach, we performed a qualitative analysis of these written reflections for emerging themes. A synthesis of these themes was prepared and was presented for validation and discussion by two focus groups of six and three students, respectively. We analysed the transcripts of the focus group discussions and compared them with results from the analysis of written reflections and used them to further inform and refine our initial thematic framework. RESULTS: A total of 356 reflective writing assignments were analysed. The major themes were: (i) students seeing the condition within the context of patients' lives; (ii) patients supporting students' learning; (iii) students recognising patients' needs; (iv) students seeing the patient as a capable part of the team, and (v) students recognising the complexity of practising medicine. The two focus group discussions confirmed these main themes, but placed greater emphasis on the first and second themes. These themes mapped closely to the conceptualisation of patient-centred care defined by the International Alliance of Patients' Organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Students' reflections on their experiences of patient-educators cover an important and broad range of key concepts in patient-centred care that are well aligned with patient-generated conceptualisations of 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 | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".