MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111101785 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2007v32n3a1959

Asymmetrical Talk between Physicians and Patients: A Quantitative Discourse Analysis

2007· article· en· W2111101785 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Han Z. Li, Naghmeh G. Desroches, Young-ok Yum, George Deagle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaGrand River HospitalUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsInterviewPatient satisfactionFamily medicineDiscourse analysisPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyNursingSociologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the discursive dynamics between physicians and patients in order to understand associations between physicians’ communication patterns and patient satisfaction. Fieldwork was conducted in a clinic in northern British Columbia. Thirty-one physician-patient consultations were audiotaped, and follow-up questionnaires on satisfaction were filled out by patients. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used to examine nine categories of talk. Our study confirmed previous assertions that physicians’ and patients’ talk patterns are highly asymmetrical. Physicians controlled the medical consultation by asking more questions than patients, and patients did not necessarily appreciate this type of communication. Male physicians tended to make more facilitative remarks when interviewing female than male patients, which was negatively correlated with patient satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207