Neurosurgical patients’ perceptions of the “surgeon+”: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgical patients bear a varying degree of anxiety when confronted with having to undergo surgery or even visit with a neurosurgeon in consultation. Previous studies have suggested that patient perceptions can heavily influence the patient-physician encounter. Accordingly, a better understanding of these perceptions can marshal our knowledge regarding strategies for improving patient-physician interactions during such an apprehensive time. The aim of the present study was to qualitatively examine patient values and preferences for a neurosurgeon who participates in extraclinical activities (i.e., a "neurosurgeon+") and understand the factors that influence these perceptions. METHODS: Semistructured face-to-face interviews with 47 neurosurgical patients were conducted. Patients were recruited from the Toronto Western Hospital neurosurgery clinics for cranial and spinal conditions. Descriptive summary statistics were used to characterize the study participants. Family members were encouraged to contribute to the interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis by using open and axial coding. RESULTS: Patients generally indicated that they want to feel confident in their neurosurgeon. A number of factors contribute to this confidence, including a strong positive referral from another physician. Patients are inclined to search for information pertaining to the qualifications of neurosurgeons online, and a perception of the neurosurgeon's adeptness given his or her qualifications is important for patients. Although there were some differences in patient values between those in the cranial and spinal groups, overall, neurosurgical patients tend to positively view their neurosurgeon's involvement in extraclinical duties. CONCLUSIONS: This study details the first comprehensive clinical qualitative study of patient perceptions of neurosurgeons and provides a descriptive framework for understanding patient values in this clinical domain.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".