Negotiating Vulnerabilities: How Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions Interact with Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on patient-physician interactions has largely ignored the perspectives of older adults with multiple morbidities. Featuring in-depth interview data from 16 men and 19 women with an average of six chronic conditions, this study focused on how participants perceived and experienced the care provided by their primary care physicians. Participants suggested that physicians caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions should be thorough, amenable to gate keeping, trustworthy, and open to different decision-making styles. However, many study participants perceived that they received inadequate care due to the personal failings of their physicians, constraints of medical consultations, and societal ageism. Consequently, many of the participants, especially the women, employed various strategies to maximize the care they received and manage their physicians' impressions of them as worthy patients. Our findings suggest that elderly patients with multiple morbidities perceive that their health needs are not being adequately met.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".