Effect of patient socioeconomic status on perceptions of first- and second-year medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician decision-making and perceptions of patients are affected by a patient's socioeconomic status (SES). We sought to determine if the perceptions of first- and second-year medical students are similarly affected. We also wanted to determine whether a student's own SES affects his or her perceptions of patients from a low or high SES background. METHODS: Two similar videos of a physician-patient interview were created. One video featured a patient of apparently high SES and the other featured a patient of apparently low SES. Differences in SES were portrayed by means of clothing, accessories and dialogue. First- and second-year medical students at the University of Western Ontario were recruited to view 1 of the videos and to answer a questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 205 (89%) of the 231 medical students invited to participate. Respondents' perceptions of the low SES and high SES patients were significantly different in the following respects. The low SES patient was perceived to be less compliant in taking medications and less likely to return for follow-up visits; was perceived to have a lower level of social support, poorer overall health and a worse prognosis; and was perceived to be more adversely affected in his occupational duties by illness (p < 0.05). Furthermore, second-year students who watched the video with the low SES patient were less inclined to want that patient in their practice than second-year students who watched the video with the high SES patient (p = 0.032). One hundred and six students (52%) were categorized as having high SES and 37 (18%) as having low SES (the remaining students were categorized as having mid-level SES). Among students who watched the video with the low SES patient, the level of agreement with the statement "This person is the kind of patient I would like to have in my practice" was greater among low SES students than among high SES students (p = 0.012). INTERPRETATION: First- and second-year medical students have negative perceptions of low SES patients on several dimensions.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".