Would Your Patient Prefer to Be Considered Your Friend? Patient Preferences in Physician Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand how patient preferences and perceptions of their relationship with their doctor (as patient, friend, partner, client, consumer, or insured) affects confidence in care provided and participation in health care. METHODS: Telephone questionnaire to 2,135 households, representative of the population in Israel. RESULTS: A total of 508 completed the questionnaire. Most described perceived and desired relationships with their doctor as patient or friend. Individuals were least satisfied with business-type relationships implied by client, consumer, or insured. Preference in relationship type was not associated with participation in health care. Those with a patient, friend, or partner relationship were twice as confident in their care as those with a business-type relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for the terms patient and friend over business terms highlight the importance of the human connection in the patient-physician relationship. Although one might consider patient a paternalistic term, those with a patient, partner, or friend-type versus a business-type relationship had much greater confidence in their care and were no less likely to be active participants in their own health care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".