Behind closed doors II: systematic analysis of prostate cancer patients' primary treatment consultations with radiation oncologists and predictors of satisfaction with communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to explicate the content of primary treatment consultations in prostate oncology and examine the predictive relationships between patient, significant other, and oncologist consultation factors and patient satisfaction with communication. METHODS: The recorded consultations of 156 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients from three Canadian cancer centers were examined using the Medical Interaction Process System (MIPS). The MIPS findings, independent observer ratings of patient, significant other, and oncologist affective behavior, and derived consultation ratios of patient centeredness, patient directedness, and psychosocial focus, were used to predict patient satisfaction with communication post-consultation and at 12-weeks post-consultation. RESULTS: Biomedical content categories were predominant in the consultations, accounting for 86% of utterances, followed by administrative (9%) and psychosocial (5%) utterances. Post-consultation satisfaction with communication was significantly lower for patients whose significant others were rated as more assertive during the consultation, and those rated as more anxious during the consultation. Patients who were rated as more anxious during the consultation, those with lower satisfaction with communication immediately post-consultation and those with shorter consultations were significantly less satisfied with communication at 12-weeks post-consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment consultations in prostate oncology are characterized by a high degree of information-giving by the physician, a predominance of biomedical discussion, and relatively minimal time addressing patients' psychosocial concerns. Patients may benefit from oncologists who address anxiety and emotional distress during the primary treatment consultation, allowing sufficient time to ensure that patients leave the consultation with their communication needs having been satisfied.
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 | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".