'I've broken my neck or something!' The general practice experience of whiplash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients and GPs concerning the management of mild to moderate whiplash. METHODS: Qualitative study using phenomenology. In-depth interviews with patients and their treating GPs. General practices in the northern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia. Participants. Maximum variation sample of nine patients suffering from mild to moderate whiplash and their treating GPs. GPs identified patients with recent whiplash. In-depth interviews were conducted with both groups. Patients were telephoned 3 months later to evaluate progress. Analysis used a constant comparative process and independent transcript review assisted by N-Vivo software. RESULTS: Patients articulated a need to be understood by a physician whom they knew and trusted. For all, the principal underlying concerns were about pain and the financial and physical impact of the injury, particularly in view of its perceived potential to harm the spine. While most patients expected medical interventions to help facilitate speedy recovery, physicians were far more pessimistic. Despite acknowledging the importance of addressing psychological needs, most GPs underestimated the degree of patient distress in the post-injury period. Although guardedly supportive of the local insurance system, GPs were scornful of patients seeking inappropriate compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the influence of the patient-doctor relationship on clinical care in patients with whiplash, suggesting that the path to patient recovery and physician satisfaction may benefit if clinicians better understand patient experiences. The disconnect between patient and practitioner conceptualization of the problem challenges quality 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".