A conceptual framework for patient–professional communication: an application to the cancer context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a conceptual framework of one-to-one, in-person communication that occurs between a health-care professional and a patient. The framework is intended as a tool for organizing and summarizing relevant research but it can also help guide assessing the communication process and can help guide development of interventions to improve the process. The framework includes four key components, with a focus on elements that can be modified. The first component is the focus of the interaction: each participant's communication goals. The second component consists of the participants themselves, each with five key attributes that determine, in part, how they address their goals. The third component is the communication process: each person both conveys messages and receives messages, and the messages themselves can be verbal, non-verbal, or silent. The communication process is iterative and extended in time with one act having an impact on following acts. Finally, the fourth component is the environment in which the communication occurs, both the immediate physical setting and the context beyond. Important aspects of the environment, identified as external factors, affect the communication process through their impact on the participants' attributes. The framework builds on classic communication frameworks to which it adds unique elements. Some of its unique aspects include the prominent role of the participants' goals and its distinct recognition that messages are conveyed through silence. The framework serves as a common conceptualization of factors important to successful communication for the remaining review papers in this series and for future studies of practitioner-patient communication.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it