The International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare: An interprofessional global collaboration to enhance values and communication in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The human dimensions of healthcare--core values and skilled communication necessary for every healthcare interaction--are fundamental to compassionate, ethical, and safe relationship-centered care. The objectives of this paper are to: describe the development of the International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare which delineates core values, articulate the role of skilled communication in enacting these values, and provide examples showing translation of the Charter's values into action. METHODS: We describe development of the Charter using combined qualitative research methods and the international, interprofessional collaboration of institutions and individuals worldwide. RESULTS: We identified five fundamental categories of human values for every healthcare interaction--Compassion, Respect for Persons, Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Practice, Commitment to Excellence, and Justice in Healthcare--and delineated subvalues within each category. We have disseminated the Charter internationally and incorporated it into education/training. Diverse healthcare partners have joined in this work. CONCLUSION: We chronicle the development and dissemination of the International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare, the role of skilled communication in demonstrating values, and provide examples of educational and clinical programs integrating these values. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The Charter identifies and promotes core values clinicians and educators can demonstrate through skilled communication and use to advance humanistic educational programs and practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".