Neurosurgery patients' feelings about the role of residents in their care: a qualitative case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The role of residents in surgery is not clearly explained to patients. The authors undertook a study to explore the level of knowledge and anxiety in patients regarding residents' involvement in their surgery. METHODS: Qualitative case study methodology was used. Thirty face-to-face interviews of patients were conducted prior to elective neurosurgery. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to modified thematic analysis by 4 reviewers. The majority of patients had a postsecondary education, and there was substantial religious and ethnic diversity among them. Most underwent craniotomy for brain tumor. RESULTS: Six prominent themes arose from the analysis: 1) the level of knowledge about residents is low; 2) the level of anxiety about residents is low; 3) it is desirable for patients to meet the residents before surgery; 4) residents' educational needs are understood and supported; 5) anxiety was not increased by the interview; and 6) patients trust in the medical system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appear to be unaware of the role of residents in their surgical care but do not seem anxious about it. Trust in the medical system helps patients proceed with risky operations. Surgeons could be more forthcoming with patients about the role of residents.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".