Health risk appraisal for older people 5: self-efficacy in patient–doctor interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Enhancing self-efficacy is central to programmes promoting self-care and self-management. However, little is known about older people's self-efficacy in doctor-patient interactions. This paper investigates lifestyle, medical and demographic factors associated with self-efficacy in doctor-patient interactions in older people in general practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial of older people was conducted in a health risk appraisal study in London. Self-efficacy was measured using the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Questionnaire. RESULTS: Older people with higher self-efficacy were significantly more likely to report having had recent preventive care measures such as recent blood pressure measurement and influenza immunisation. Women were less likely to have higher self-efficacy than men. Older people were significantly less likely to have high self-efficacy if they reported having poor memory, low mood, limited activities due to fear of falling, basic education, difficulties with at least one activity of daily living, reduced physical activity, living alone, or risk of social isolation. CONCLUSION: A third of people had low self-efficacy in doctor-patient interactions. They appear to be a vulnerable group. Low self-efficacy in interactions with doctors may be a symptom or a characteristic of older people who experience social isolation and depression. Policies that depend on enhancing self-care and self-management need to consider the large number of older people with low self-efficacy in using medical services, and understanding characteristics in older people associated with lower confidence in doctor-patient interactions may be useful in clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".