Meanings and perceptions of patient-centeredness in social work, nursing and medicine: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Answering patients' evolving, more complex needs has been recognized as a main incentive for the development of interprofessional care. Thus, it is not surprising that patient-centered practice (PCP) has been adopted as a major outcome for interprofessional education. Nevertheless, little research has focused on how PCP is perceived across the professions. This study aimed to address this issue by adopting a phenomenological approach and interviewing three groups of professionals: social workers (n = 10), nurses (n = 10) and physicians (n = 8). All the participants worked in the same department (the General Internal Medicine department of a university affiliated hospital). Although the participants agreed on a core meaning of PCP as identifying, understanding and answering patients' needs, they used many dimensions to define PCP. Overall, the participants expressed value for PCP as a philosophy of care, but there was the sense of a hierarchy of patient-centeredness across the professions, in which both social work and nursing regarded themselves as more patient-centered than others. On their side, physicians seemed inclined to accept their lower position in this hierarchy. Gieryn's concept of boundary work is employed to help illuminate the nature of PCP within an interprofessional context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".