Patient-centred continuing professional development for Canadian physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Improving clinical practice skills can enhance a patient-centred model of health care. The objectives of this study were to discover if physicians consider learning about elements of patient-centred care important, and whether the perceived importance is influenced by choice of medical speciality practised and/or number of years in clinical practice. Methods. Of 310 surveys returned, a total of 268 physicians from one province in Canada were studied. On average, the participants had 16 years of practice experience with family medicine making up the largest component of the study cohort – 41%. Physicians were asked how useful learning about specific topics would be to improve their communication with patients from different cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. The self-report measures were examined using mean differences among specialities, gender, and correlation with years in clinical practice. Results. The mean scores were above the scale midpoint for all specialities. The correlation data indicated a negative relationship between years in clinical practice and 2 of the 6 variables studied. Women physicians rated learning about patients’ health beliefs higher than men but men rated patient communication skills higher than women. Discussion. Physicians rated the importance of incorporating principles of patient-centred care into their clinical practice highly, suggesting that they may benefit from practice interventions such as reflection. AJHPE 2012;4(1):40-43. DOI:10.7196/AJHPE.129
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".